Foreign Influence & The Eligibility Clause

Preventing foreign influence from gaining a foothold in the United States was the reason the Founders included the Eligibility Clause in the Constitution. Presidential eligibility must be viewed in that context above and beyond place of birth, parents, and duel citizenship. In that one sense, Hussein must be thanked for bringing presidential eligibility to the public arena after more than a century of neglect.

Some points to consider regarding foreign influence:

1. Notwithstanding involving Americans in a foreign war when the country was not threatened, Woodrow Wilson was either too stupid to know that US membership in the League of Nations was an invitation to foreign influence, or Wilson did it deliberately. I suspect the latter. Fortunately, the US Senate at the time, along with the American people, rejected US membership the League. Unfortunately, the respite was brief.

2. The United Nations picked up where the League of Nations failed. US membership in the UN resulted in an barrage of foreign influences permeating America’s affairs. Environmental claptrap administer by the EPA is the best known of those influences. Open-borders is the most conspicuous example of foreign influence that Americans must live with on a daily basis. Ratifying any UN treaty is the most destructive of foreign influences. Multiculturalism implemented by the education industry, and enforced by the courts, is the most insidious concentration of foreign influences.

3. The New World Order crowd; i.e., global government advocates, can doublespeak their motives until the cows come home, but after the talk stops every last one of them openly embraces foreign influence because they hate America’s independence. Everyone of them is a traitor.

CLARIFICATION: I often say that the US Senate is a nest of traitors. By traitors, I mean quislings who would hand America’s sovereignty to global government. The House of Representatives is not much better than the Senate because it funds everything Senate quislings demand.

House or Senate, I doubt if many of those traitors ever give a thought to foreign influence. I’m convinced they all know what they are giving away. I’m just as convinced they do not know what they're getting in return. Most of them are simply not astute enough to see the political consequences of their actions. Their ignorance is shrouded in greed, graft, lust for power, and, worst of all, the certainty they are working towards a better world every time they betray America to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community).

4. If the Eligibility Clause retains any meaning in today’s world it must mean that a president will stand against foreign influence. The problem is this: A president’s loyalty is loosely defined by the oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Beginning with Woodrow Wilson, preventing foreign influence from gaining ground in America’s affairs fell through the cracks. After 1945 every president, well-intentioned or otherwise, who deferred to the United Nations in any instance betrayed his country, yet where is the case for treason against those presidents who knowingly encourage foreign influence? Answer:

Encouraging foreign influence in America’s affairs is not considered treason, or an abrogation of the presidential oath. Nor is preventing foreign influence linked to the Eligibility Clause as the Founders clearly intended.

5. Should the Supremes ever hear an Eligibility Clause case how big of a role will foreign influence play in their deliberations? It should be an important consideration for anyone trying to determine the meaning and intent of the Eligibility Clause. A ruling based on preventing foreign influence would remove the screen too many presidents use to hide their betrayals.

Finally, likening an Eligibility Clause ruling to opening Pandora’s box barely scratches the surface. Tying treason to foreign influence is but one possible result of an Eligibility Clause ruling; so it’s no wonder the High Court is running away from the Eligibility Clause faster than the Road Runner runs away from Wiley Coyote.

Wiley Coyote’s dilemma at the end of the following link is the Supreme Court’s dilemma:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KJJW7EF5aVk

 

Shame on me. In my OP, I forgot to include one of foreign influence’s most egregious offenses. Christopher Holton’s piece details one example of foreign influence although he approaches the topic from another direction:

September 18, 2011
American Laws for American Courts
By Christopher Holton

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html

What does that article have to do with the Eligibility Clause? Answer: The Eligibility Clause kicks in when a president and his Justice Department come down on the side of foreign influence.

Shariah law

Should you read the article you will see that Oklahoma’s State Question 755 singles out shariah law. I see nothing wrong in that. In a flagrant misinterpretation of the First Amendment opponents of SQ 755 claim Islam is being denied freedom of religion. Holton’s piece points out flaws in SQ 755, but fails to mention the major flaw in Islam’s argument.

Islam is a political movement because it strives for theocracy by combining government and religion; the exact opposite of what America stands for. Islam’s biggest fear arising from SQ 755 is losing its status as a religion should the First Amendment be applied as it applies to every other Supreme Deity religion. Churches can lose their tax exempt status for preaching politics from the pulpit, yet Islam does just that every time it tries to gain a foothold in America’s judicial system with shariah law.

NOTE: Both Islam and socialism/communism are theocracies that must destroy individual liberties if they are to survive. Both fly in the face of mankind’s march towards freedom from totalitarian government. Ultimately, Islam must be legally defined as a political movement, while socialism must be legally defined as a religion. That is the only way to deny their First Amendment protection. Socialism has been the most destructive of the two to date because Socialists fund their religion with tax dollars thanks to the XVI Amendment, while petroleum money is responsible for Islam’s resurgence in the past century. Ask yourself: Where would socialism be today without tax dollars? and where would Islam be today without petro-dollars? Bottom line: Islam is a political movement as much as it is a religion. The trick is to eliminate the politics without punishing the religion. SQ 755 does just that.

International law

SQ 755 includes barring international law from Oklahoma’s courts. International law encourages foreign influence far more than does shariah law because most Americans fail to see how insidious it is. Associate Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg are strong advocates for non-existent international law; ergo, foreign influence.

For those who are not familiar with the myth of international law, former U.S. circuit court judge and legal scholar Robert Bork summed it up best in his book "Coercing Virtue," "International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy."

Finally, I can only pray that Americans begin to consider the dangers of foreign influence instead of getting lost in the legal arguments America’s enemies churn out day after day —— arguments that would not stand a chance against the original intent of the Eligibility Clause.