Why do liberals keep asking conservatives if they would be ok with amending the Constitution to make foreign-born citizens eligible to be President?

Amending the Constitution to make naturalized foreign-born Americans eligible to be President of this country is an idea typically put forward by liberals (e.g., Chris Mathews during the first Republican debate on MSNBC, 5/3/07) and it is usually couched in terms of allowing people like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mel Martinez, two popular Republican politicians, to run for President. Conservatives don’t generally like the idea because it is, well, unconservative. Liberals seem to like the idea, with good reason from their point of view. They know that foreign nationals support them over Republicans. The U.S. population is about 5% of global population, and many if not most people in foreign countries believe that political and financial economics are zero sum games, hence they tend to think that what is good for America is bad for them, and vice versa. This explains much of why almost everything the Democrats propose (cut military spending, surrender in Iraq, close Gitmo, open borders, socialize healthcare, don’t fix Social Security, be nice to anti-American Venezuela and mean to pro-American Colombia, etc.) is bad for America. When liberals throw up this idea to amend the Constitution to allow prominent Republicans to run for leadership posts, you just know there has to be an ulterior motive. What foreign-born national do they want to run for President? In this case, the hidden agenda is easy to see – just look at who is pulling the strings. Who gives the most money to Democrats and their various mouthpieces like Moveon.org and Media Matters? That’s right, I’m talking about George Soros.

If Schwarzenegger could run, then so could Soros. And Soros has a lot more money than Schwarzenegger. Billionaire George Soros has vowed to spend his “entire fortune” to get a government that only enacts policies he likes. He spent tens of millions of dollars on the 2004 and 2006 elections. He did fail to get Kerry elected in 2004, but succeeded in getting Democratic majorities in 2006. The man already pretty much owns the Democratic party, but he’s pissed that he has to stay behind the curtain. He intends to be ruler of the most powerful nation on Earth, yet liberals and French people call him a philanthropist (I know a lot of liberals and French people, so I am speaking from experience here). You might say that he’s just like any other American – he wants what is best for his country and is allowed to spend his money how he wants. No one is saying he can't spend his money how he wants, but before allowing his media outlets to persuade you, at least consider how he is spending that money. He described his trading strategy on the 1980s, when he ‘earned’ his billions, as taking advantage of predictable crowd behavior. He is doing the same now, but worse. Now he is trying to control crowd behavior by changing our perceptions of reality – by rewriting history, stopping important facts from coming to light (e.g., via Media Matters) while amplifying the things that support his goals (e.g., via Moveon.org). The man does not care about humanity. Just consider his answers during a 60 Minutes interview in which he talked about his experience when his “character was made” in Budapest when the Nazis were in charge:

...there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

Where was he? He, a Jew, was working with the Nazis in taking away his fellow Jews’ property as they, not he (thanks to forged documents provided by his father), were sent off to concentration camps to die, and he’s saying he has absolutely no sense of guilt. He literally has no shame. He calls Bush a Nazi when he himself actually worked with the Nazis to steal his fellow Jews’ property. Look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary and there should be a picture of George Soros. This man’s character, as he himself has stated, is defined by benefiting from other people’s, his own people’s, misery. Anyone who thinks that Soros has the best interests of the U.S. is a fool. At a minimum, we can say that he is NOT a humanitarian – can we at least agree on that much? In recent years, he has time and time again sided with America’s adversaries. So, why are we allowing this man to have influence over our government? Why do we give any credibility at all to the people he supports financially? (Hillary, I’m talking about you. You too, Barak.) I know he has a lot of money, but money can’t change facts. What it can do though, is make it unlikely that anyone is around to hear when a tree falls in the forest.