There does seem to be some qualification that have be ignored. Vattel Law Nation is most likely the source of the use by Madison of the Term Natural Born Citizen. Here is a the salient point copied. "“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." Then Congress use the term again in the Naturalization Act of 1790. again the salient point copied. "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States" I can't find it's use anywhere else in Congressional law except of course the Constitution and there are no amendment that affect the requirement of the President to be a Natural Born Citizen. My take is, Barrack Obama's Birth place was Hawaii and he is or was at one time qualified to be President of Kenya but never was qualified to be president of the United States. Under British law of that day, The Right of Decent would have made him a Kenyan through his father. That is exactly what the provision in the Constitution was intended to avoid and Barrack Obama is demonstrating exactly why. The United States did not draw a Red Line in the sand, Barrack Obama do so foolishly but was in no way qualified to do so for the United State. I do believe the rest of the world may begin to see how foolish it was for the American voter to give this interloper a run at the job when our own Constitution should have prevented this unfortunate situation.
I think this is a proxy war between the Shite lead by Iran and the Sunni lead by Riyad. A large segment of the population is Christian, Easter Orthodox and Asaad is protective of them as is Putin. His interest seem to be much stronger than ours since he has the same problems just North of there. The conflict in Syria seems to be the rebels want to make the area Shite. In direct response to your question, I don't know! Does Barrak favor Shite or Sunni? He bowed deeply to the Saudi King if that is any clue. Remember, he doesn't want to take Assad out, just to the woodshed. But it sure seem this red line save face is a crock. If that is all there is to it why doesn't Barrack use his super diplomacy skills and ask Putin to take control of the cache in Syria. Shazam! World saved!
https://www.google.com/search?q=oba...ABKerigLHroDICw&start=10&sa=N&biw=320&bih=416 Fish in a barrel.
Barrack was educated in Indonesia in all things to do with the Holy Quran. You can tell when he speaks of the beauty of it all. However, when he wanted to learn his Christian way, he sure picked one nasty preacher. No beauty there.
The answer to that question has a hell of a lot more to do with the whole problem than any friggin red line drawn when a zipped lip would serve much better. Unless of course you are in on the know of the question you ask.
Of course it takes a billionaire to fund the making of Atlas Shrugged, but this film had no trouble being made. http://www.loosechange911.com/
Then I repeat it for real. It sort of pisses me off to have my nation participating like it was some sort of tool that didn't even need to know why.
Loose Change is a great comedy. Right up there with Fahrenheit 911 in terms of scripting, storytelling, and absurdity. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98603
Great news! Ed Asner's been found! http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326?imw=Y
huh! I think I got that backward. The rebels want to make the area Sunni. But why do we need to take a hand in this?? Darned if I can see it.
Who is the UN going to send in to arrest him? Do you think he'll just come quietly? So the principle of not "feeling anti-black" trumps the principle of "being against war"? :smh:
Brian, My understanding of NATO is that should one member country be attacked, the others all come to the aid of that country. This is how NATO countries got involved in Afghanistan, if I remember correctly. You know my preference is we stay out of foreign interventions. You've asked in the past whether we should have stopped the Nazis. It's clear they were invading our allies, so yes we should have. Now you ask who the UN is going to send in to arrest Assad. Of course it would be us. It would be the UN sending us in, not Obama or some other president of the USA. Article IV of the Constitution reads, in part: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; So we can and must do our duty to fulfill those treaties such as NATO and with the UN.
