U.S. Presidential Qualifications

Feb 24th, 2014 | By | Category: Firearms, Katz Litterbox, Politics-General
Share

katz-litter4LETTER TO THE EDITOR STATES ANYONE BORN BY C-SECTION CANNOT BECOME PRESIDENT BECAUSE THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION’S ‘NATURAL BORN’ REQUIREMENT

I was just sent a copy of a ‘Letter to the Editor’ that was published in a Morehead City, N.C. newspaper a year ago.  While the letter is for real, I’m not sure whether it is a parody written by a Republican or whether the writer is really so stupid as to believe the Constitution’s requirement that the President be a ‘natural born citizen’ would disqualify anyone born by C-section from holding that office.  Because the letter is too well written to be authored by a stupid person, I believe that ‘PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT’ is actually a Republican.

Here is that letter:

Carteret County News-Times | January 23, 2013

Beaufort, N.C.

Jan. 17, 2013

TO THE EDITOR:

Republicans and “so-called” conservatives are at it again.   They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government.  If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?

We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else.  Our great president came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us.  I don’t know the exact statistics, but I’m quite certain that Chicago is a lot safer than Morehead City, when it comes to gun violence.

But do Republicans and conservatives listen to the voice of reason?  No, of course not.  All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth redistribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway.  There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution, I’d say, and President Obama needs to change it.

The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being president. Right now, it says that a person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair.

Please withhold my name because I don’t want to get crank calls.

PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT

Sponsored Content

One Comment to “U.S. Presidential Qualifications”

  1. kl2008a says:

    Howie, while it may have been written by a republican I think it goes deeper than this. It goes to the heart of the problem – the lie. But what is a lie and what is the truth? If you can’t prove that something is true does it make it a lie? If you can’t prove that something is a lie, does it make it the truth? If, like a magician, I deceive you with “slight-of-hand” tactics to hide the truth does it make the truth a lie? If you hide the truth to support a lie is the lie then the truth? For example, if I told you I had a million dollars in the bank, yet I refused to show you proof of such, does that mean it’s a lie? How could you prove that I was lying if I took steps to hide the proof from you that what I was telling the truth? In that same light, what if I had taken steps to insure that the truth would never be found out that I did NOT have a million dollars in the bank, would that mean I lied about it? If you couldn’t prove that I was telling the truth then how would you prove I was lying? Ask yourself, “Why would a person hide the truth?” If the truth is in question wouldn’t it be easier to show the proof that the truth was in fact true? By denying or covering the proof could it be that if the truth was found then a lie would be exposed? In a swordfight, you use a shield to protect yourself against your attacker. It is the same with the truth. If you shield the lie from its attackers so that it cannot become vulnerable can you overcome him without proof of the truth? If the truth can overcome your attacker’s lies wouldn’t you use it to be victorious? So again I ask, what is a lie and what is the truth? What truths are being hidden from you and I to protect the lies?