www.problemfixed.info/maurleensimpson"Because I was excited about writing this article, I hastily convened "The View", my insightful and sassy girlfriends at work. I asked Cristina, a naturalized American citizen, if naturalized Americans should have the right to run for the presidency of the United States. She immediately opined that naturalized citizens should have the exact same opportunities and rights that native born Americans have. Cristina was born in Portugal; however, she was raised and educated in the United States. Recently, she returned from Portugal after living there for eleven years with her son, husband and mother. She, like millions of other naturalized citizens, proudly took the Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens and renounced her fidelity to any other sovereign nation besides The United States of America. Despite this solemn oath and Cristina's unquestionable love of this country, she admitted that she has a strong visceral connection to her native country , and this connection could be appropriately characterized as loyalty. Apparently, this loyalty to another sovereign entity is an execrable breach of her Oath of Allegiance. It seems that Cristina is the prototypical naturalized citizen who is metaphorically two timing the U.S.A. because a naturalized citizens are not unequivocally and decisively loyal to the U.S.A. when confronted with a conflict that involves the U.S.A. and their native country. I asked Cris if she were president, could she attack or penalize Portugal? She hesitated, paused and looked bewildered. But the president of The United States cannot hesitate, pause or look bewildered because of a visceral loyalty to another country. First and foremost, the president of the United States must elevate and promote the needs of the United States of America above all others. In other words this pre-eminent responsibility eclipses all others www.problemfixed.info/maurleensimpson Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: Travis <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:33:05 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: If you didn't protest Bush's deficits then don't protest Obama's The only reason we have any deficits is that we have runaway govt spending on massive nanny-state useless and worthless socialist programs and a congress that wont stop it because they are only interested in getting their sorry asses re-elected and nothing else. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected] > wrote: > > Bush had deficits because he had irresponsible tax cuts during a time > of war and irresponsible spending that did not invest in America's > future. > > Obama will allow Bush's irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy > sunset, is helping the working middle class under siege by > Bush irresponsible economic policies and investing heavily > in Americas future. > > Big difference. > > On Apr 16, 5:31 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > seems to be many Democrats logic... The flip side of course "if you > > protested Bush's deficits, then why are they NOT protesting Obama's > > deficit???" Which of course the Democrats REFUSE to answer -- to do > > so demands they label themselves hypocrites... > > > -- *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
