Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,581 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,749,942
Pageviews Today: 2,515,211Threads Today: 882Posts Today: 16,487
08:41 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Why MSM declared Obama the loser in the debate

 
Copernica

User ID: 17525775
United States
10/04/2012 05:11 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Why MSM declared Obama the loser in the debate
Here's my new theory:

MSM has turned against Obama because he no longer has to tow the Democratic Party line. They have just realized that if he gets re-elected he will be an untethered rogue President.

With Obama's socialist and marxist ties - he could really do a lot of damage to the country. More than he could as a puppet for the Dems. He's especially dangerous because he likely BELIEVES in those causes.

As I said...new theory. I haven't necessarily worked it all the way through. Feel free to expand on it. :o)
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." John Jay, NY,NY - 1787

When the US Constitution was written, the "natural law" that dealt with issues such as nationality and allegiance to a sovereign was called "the law of nations." Modernly, we call this "international law." In 1788, the preeminent codification, description and explanation of "the law of nations" was a work written by Emerich de Vattel, entitled THE LAW OF NATIONS, or principles of the law of nature applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns. The Founders were not only familiar with de Vattel's treatise, they relied on it extensively when they wrote laws and Constitutions (of their respective States, not just the Federal one.)

In Section 212 of de Vattel's treatise, he states the following:

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.”
[link to www.freerepublic.com]

News