The Republicans have been hammering Obama for over 4 years now about his eligibility. There are many different reasons they believe he is ineligible.
Some of them are truly ridiculous. The main one that actually works though - the claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen because of the
definition of natural born citizen (which has never been changed) - also undoes the claim that McCain and Romney are eligible! I don't see how this
definition can be wrong either, especially after watching this video, which is long, but I suggest you watch (or just listen to) it:
The definition of natural born citizen (the only existing one is in Vattel's "the Law of Nations", which we drew many ideas in our constitution
from, and which was treated as a supplement for our own law or to describe the intent of our laws for decades after the signing of the Constitution)
requires that: 1). You be born on the country's soil. 2). Both of your parents were citizens of this country at the time of your birth. There is a
possible variant of that however, which makes it so that only your father needs to be a natural born citizen. So, I'll stick with the definition that
at least your father needs to be a citizen.
McCain: Born in the City Hospital in the City of Colon, Panama, off base.
(Embassies, military bases, and official foreign US offices would
have been considered US soil. He was born off base. So, he's not a natural born citizen. I know it sounds petty/nitpicky, but...keep reading)
Obama: Born to a non-citizen father
. (His father was never a citizen of the US)
Romney: Born to a non-citizen father
(His father was not yet a US citizen when Mitt was born. Family was expatriated [citizenship stripped] by
the US government for the crime of polygamy and leaving the country. The law giving descendant George Romney US citizenship came about in 1948. Mitt
was born in 1947. Mitt was born a non-natural born citizen, which can't be changed by anything but a constitutional amendment. Interesting to note:
George Romney ran for president in 1968, even though he was born a Mexican citizen in Chihuahua.)
So, if you're not intrigued yet....Here's why this is extremely important. The probability of just choosing 1 person at random from the Democrat
elites (congressmen, senators, governors...those who typically run for and win the presidency), who is not a natural born citizen, is pretty small.
Same for Republicans. Most people in the offices of the elites are natural born citizens; both parents citizens at time of birth, and born on US soil.
I would assume that the probability of choosing one at random would be less than 10%, but lets just go with 10% as the actual number in each camp, Dem
and Rep. I doubt it's more than that.
So, just with that math, you have a 10% chance of randomly selecting a non-nbc to be your party's candidate. What about the case where BOTH sides
have a non-nbc as candidate? The probability of that is 1% (1/10 * 1/10). Now what would be the probability of having the next election structured in
the same way, with 2 non-nbc's? The probability of having this happen (where one non-nbc candidate is recycled), is (1/10 * 1/10) * (1 * 1/10) =
That's just the math. Now factor in the fact that running for president as a non-nbc is highly illegal, support for it by congress and the judicial
branch is illegal, and there are many safeguards in place to keep this from happening...and you find that the real probability of this happening
can't really be calculated, but we know it is necessarily MUCH, MUCH smaller than 0.1%. As a matter of fact, the probability should be hundreds of
times smaller for just ONE non-nbc candidate being selected from either party.
You might argue that only a couple - or none - of these men are non-nbc's, because you're going with an altered definition or don't agree with some
of my facts. Ok...still, the probability is extremely small to have 3 candidates in a row who are AT THE VERY LEAST QUESTIONABLE when it comes to
their natural born citizen status to become the main candidates. It's extremely unlikely. You could use other attributes to argue that 10% is
nothing, because there are many other attributes (like a small nose, or having diabetes or something) that hang around the 10% range arbitrarily, and
we could find similar unlikeliness looking at those attributes...but those things are not criminal. Congress does not have the duty to ensure people
with those attributes do not become president, but they do have the duty to ensure non-nbc's stay out. The fact that they didn't even publicly
discuss the potential problems of having any of these men become the president (as each of them have had their eligibility challenged), should tell
you all you need to know. There was an outcry, and they did nothing. The judicial branch did nothing either. They are turning way the issue without
any acceptable explanation.
The reason we have the natural born citizen requirement is extremely important as well. It is a safeguard from having our highest office usurped by
foreign governments, and it tries to exclude some people from being president because it is more likely they may have their potential feelings of
foreign loyalties exploited. We want someone that cares about our nation the most, and is unlikely to govern in favor of non-US interests.
...3 CANDIDATES IN A ROW WERE APPARENTLY SELECTED BECAUSE
THEY SHARED THE ATTRIBUTE OF BEING INELIGIBLE. WHY!?!?!?
There are a couple of good-ish theories in this video as to why this is happening:
...but those are only two theories. What else could be the reason for this?
If you say coincidence....well, just don't. It's not possible.
Help me out here, people...please...