HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Birthers want proof that ...

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:26 AM

 

Birthers want proof that Mitt Romney was born in America!

What goes around, comes around. BBI



Birthers want proof that Mitt Romney was born in America
March 23, 2012


No, you read that right. You might think birthers are crazy conspiracy theorists, but you can't say they're inconsistent. The fringe group of politicians and concerned voters who have long dogged President Obama for "proof" that he is a natural born citizen are now targeting Mitt Romney. They demand that the California Secretary of State produce evidence that Mitt is eligible to run for president. One birther explains that Romney's citizenship is up for debate because his dad was born in Mexico. Thats right, Mitt Romney's father was born in the Mexican colony that Mitt's great-grandfather founded after fleeing the United States so he could stay married to Romney's four great-grandmothers. Let's all just let that sink in for a moment.

http://now.msn.com/now/0322-romney-vs-birthers.aspx

123 replies, 18035 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 123 replies Author Time Post
Reply Birthers want proof that Mitt Romney was born in America! (Original post)
Better Believe It Mar 2012 OP
freshwest Mar 2012 #1
snooper2 Mar 2012 #7
freshwest Mar 2012 #13
xtraxritical Mar 2012 #25
freshwest Mar 2012 #54
SamG Mar 2012 #2
Johonny Mar 2012 #3
Ship of Fools Mar 2012 #4
appleannie1 Mar 2012 #5
LeftinOH Mar 2012 #6
freshwest Mar 2012 #9
trusty elf Mar 2012 #32
Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #8
mwb970 Mar 2012 #58
LisaL Mar 2012 #10
kestrel91316 Mar 2012 #18
dixiegrrrrl Mar 2012 #19
harmonicon Mar 2012 #35
dixiegrrrrl Mar 2012 #36
harmonicon Mar 2012 #39
unc70 Mar 2012 #82
harmonicon Mar 2012 #84
unc70 Mar 2012 #85
harmonicon Mar 2012 #86
unc70 Mar 2012 #97
harmonicon Mar 2012 #104
unc70 Mar 2012 #107
harmonicon Mar 2012 #121
unc70 Mar 2012 #123
frogmarch Mar 2012 #110
unc70 Mar 2012 #111
frogmarch Mar 2012 #112
unc70 Mar 2012 #113
frogmarch Mar 2012 #114
unc70 Mar 2012 #117
frogmarch Mar 2012 #118
unc70 Mar 2012 #120
unc70 Mar 2012 #116
unc70 Mar 2012 #119
newspeak Mar 2012 #70
jberryhill Mar 2012 #26
MADem Mar 2012 #51
SemperEadem Mar 2012 #11
Tx4obama Mar 2012 #37
Ter Mar 2012 #44
freshwest Mar 2012 #62
freshwest Mar 2012 #61
SemperEadem Mar 2012 #77
fishwax Mar 2012 #12
Ter Mar 2012 #45
fishwax Mar 2012 #47
Ter Mar 2012 #64
unc70 Mar 2012 #81
fishwax Mar 2012 #89
unc70 Mar 2012 #90
fishwax Mar 2012 #92
unc70 Mar 2012 #93
fishwax Mar 2012 #95
unc70 Mar 2012 #96
fishwax Mar 2012 #98
unc70 Mar 2012 #99
unc70 Mar 2012 #100
fishwax Mar 2012 #101
unc70 Mar 2012 #103
fishwax Mar 2012 #105
unc70 Mar 2012 #106
fishwax Mar 2012 #109
unc70 Mar 2012 #108
JBoy Mar 2012 #14
Better Believe It Mar 2012 #21
LongTomH Mar 2012 #22
bluedigger Mar 2012 #15
etherealtruth Mar 2012 #60
cindyperry2010 Mar 2012 #16
ehrnst Mar 2012 #17
freshwest Mar 2012 #20
Better Believe It Mar 2012 #23
whistler162 Mar 2012 #24
jberryhill Mar 2012 #27
Rozlee Mar 2012 #28
SmileyRose Mar 2012 #52
obxhead Mar 2012 #29
BattyDem Mar 2012 #30
juajen Mar 2012 #53
RZM Mar 2012 #55
BattyDem Mar 2012 #66
RZM Mar 2012 #69
BattyDem Mar 2012 #71
RZM Mar 2012 #74
BattyDem Mar 2012 #78
gejohnston Mar 2012 #75
RZM Mar 2012 #76
unc70 Mar 2012 #83
Doc Holliday Mar 2012 #88
unc70 Mar 2012 #91
bleever Mar 2012 #31
Enrique Mar 2012 #38
Liberalynn Mar 2012 #33
Better Believe It Mar 2012 #34
Liberalynn Mar 2012 #80
progressoid Mar 2012 #40
Crowman1979 Mar 2012 #41
Motown_Johnny Mar 2012 #42
NICO9000 Mar 2012 #43
Better Believe It Mar 2012 #46
PatrynXX Mar 2012 #48
PatrynXX Mar 2012 #49
MADem Mar 2012 #50
fightforfreedom123 Mar 2012 #56
underpants Mar 2012 #63
RZM Mar 2012 #57
lonestarnot Mar 2012 #67
tanyev Mar 2012 #59
Bucky Mar 2012 #65
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #68
AndyTiedye Mar 2012 #72
Redneck Democrat Mar 2012 #102
kwassa Mar 2012 #73
caseymoz Mar 2012 #79
Javaman Mar 2012 #87
unc70 Mar 2012 #94
Cleita Mar 2012 #115
spanone Mar 2012 #122

Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:55 AM

1. Mind blowing. My mind is officially blown. Wow.

Not at the birthers, but at Mitt's grand dad and all that implies for their beliefs. No wonder Mittens isn't into disclosure...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:36 AM

7. Mind Blowing that the OP isn't about the President

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:06 AM

13. Well, there is that, too. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:47 AM

25. I could seriously take this comment the wrong way.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 12:12 AM

54. Okay then, here's what birthers believe, all their talking points. This is proof!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:00 AM

2. Maybe Mittens can run for President of Mexico

 

after he loses to Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:01 AM

3. The president, the only thing Birthers want made in America

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:04 AM

4. Good. Keep the little monkeys busy running around in circles.

It looks like this will be very complicated story for their little minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:17 AM

5. Can you imagine how hard it must be to survive with that type of paranoia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:23 AM

6. Get Oily Taint on this, quick!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftinOH (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:44 AM

9. *Snort*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftinOH (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 02:23 PM

32. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:37 AM

8. If nothing else, it will have the effect of exposing Rmoney's odd family history.

I'm betting that the average Republican voter doesn't know the Rmoney family history and aren't going to be happy to know why great-gramps fled the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:07 AM

58. Everything about Romney's life is far removed from normal Americans.

His history, his money, his wife and her Cadillacs. The only thing he's talked about that ordinary Americans can relate to is the Etch-A-Sketch! And trees, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:46 AM

10. I think its about time to get rid of this rule alltogether, rather than suspect anyone and everyone

of not being born in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:28 AM

18. I don't think it's a silly rule. What's silly are people too stupid or stubborn

to realize or admit that a certified copy of a birth record constitutes prima facie evidence of that birth and location that is ironclad in any court in the land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:33 AM

19. Get rid of the that rule and you end up with Ahnold as Pres.

He was seriously trying to figure out a way to be eligible for the WH...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #19)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 03:55 PM

35. So you think some citizens should be more equal than others?

I think it's a terrible rule. How does where someone was born or who their parents are influence what they can do for the country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #35)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:12 PM

36. a lot of history was behind the writing of the Constitution

including history of foreign countries ruling other countries thru wealthy aristocratic lineage.
check into the history, you may find it interesting.

as for part of your question:

"How does where someone was born or who their parents are influence what they can do for the country?"
think about that in terms of recent Presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:28 PM

39. So...

thinking about recent presidents, I conclude that what we have in the US is - despite any efforts made by those who wrote the constitution - often ruled by wealthy aristocratic lineages.

I could understand requiring that the president renounce any other citizenship they may have, but that doesn't change the fact that some citizens have more rights than others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:49 AM

82. It is a good rule. Actually 3 classes of citizens

1. Natural born (born in), eligible for Pres

2. Naturalized in

3. Naturalized, but not in USA. Strange Supreme Court interpretation of 14th amendment wording in Rogers v Bellei (1971). Naturalized at foreign birth to citizen by statue.

I personally think that 3 was a bad decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #82)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:10 AM

84. Well, you're wrong about what "natural born" means, for starters.

It means that someone was born as a citizen. Someone born to US parents in Japan is a US citizen, not a Japanese citizen. That's just one example - in some countries they'd be both, but in all cases, a person born to US parents is a natural born citizen, regardless of where they were born.

In any case, these are three types of citizenship, not three different classes in terms of rights. In that case, there are only two, and eligibility to run for president is the only thing that I can think of which distinguishes them.

How is it a good rule? Please, do tell me why one citizen should have fewer rights than another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #84)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:18 AM

85. Citizen "at birth" not same as "natural born" / "by birth"

A child born in Japan to US Citizen parents is under current law a citizen at birth. Those laws are part of the uniform rules for naturalization. Not born IN the US, then naturalized.

Rogers v Bellei is only decision currently distinguishing between citizen types except regarding qualifications for President. It makes distinction against your example of child born abroad.

Here is some background reading. Be glad to discuss further on the finer points.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/35-naturalization-and-citizenship.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #85)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:28 AM

86. It seems from those cases that there is some contradictory information.

Some opinions seem to state that naturalized citizens have all of the same rights as natural born citizens, but at other times presidency is specifically addressed.

You still haven't answered to me why you think this discrimination is a good idea. It seems like an equal protection case to me.

Of course this likely would never come before the court until someone was elected president and had their right to be so questioned. This wasn't an issue when George Romney ran for president (born in Mexico to - possibly, but possibly not - US citizen parents).

I guess the definition - as you illustrate, it's changed over time - really is only dependent on what the courts determine.

Regardless, I see no reason to have second class citizens in any respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #86)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 02:14 AM

97. Why I think natural born clause is good

As you noted, the courts have slowly moved towards removing the last distinctions between types of citizens except for the requirement that the President be natural born, the only Constitutionally mandated distinction.

There remains one exception allowing revoking citizenship for fraud when alien applied to become citizens. I would prefer to eliminate that exception, too. As you saw in the case law, most of what everyone "knows" on this subject is wrong.

I think the original reason for the natural born clause was valid then and now. The easiest justification for me now is to consider what the alternative scenario would look like. Now, all that must be proved is that the candidate was born in the USA. Period. No matter what some birthers might believe.

You saw at the link some of the strange questions in the case law. Consider having those technical discussions reexamining whether the chain of citizenship is intact through several generations. For a congressman, we might not care that much. For President, for C in C, we care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #97)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:48 AM

104. I do, in a part, understand your point...

however, you - to simplify it - seem to arguing in favour of convenience, and I don't think anyone should be denied rights due to convenience.

I don't have problems with laws stating that the president must have lived in the US for x number (I think it's 13 in the constitution) of years before becoming president, as this would apply to any citizen. Of course some exceptions would have to be made for diplomatic trips, education, etc. (and they obviously have, or else I don't think John Adams could have been president).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #104)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:09 PM

107. Would you eliminate natural born clause altogether?

My support for the natural born clause is more than for any possible convenience. It requires that our only nationally elected leader must be truly of the nation, its soil, from birth.

The rules regarding foreign born children of citizens have become increasingly more relaxed. This has reached the point that under the assumption that natural born would apply to those so born, then someone was born, raised, and lived 2/3 of their life in another country could qualify for the presidency.

BTW did you read my other posts elsewhere in this thread?

(Thanks for the reasonable discussion. It is complicated in non-obvious ways that appear when reading the links I have noted.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #107)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:50 AM

121. I absolutely think the clause should be eliminated.

It just comes down to this: do citizens have equal rights? I think that we all have (or should have) equal rights. As soon as one right exists for any person which is denied to another, we have two tiers of citizenship, and I think that's wrong.

Would you deny these citizens the right to vote? If they're denied participation in the democratic process in one way, to me they're denied it all in principle.

None of us choose where we're born, and I don't think that should ever be held against us. As adults, however, we can find ourselves in circumstances where we can choose where to be a citizen. If someone makes a choice to be an American, I think their ties to the US are as strong, if not more strong, than someone who is a citizen by accident of birth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #121)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 09:07 AM

123. Constitution is funny about right to vote

For example, there probably is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a State from allowing non-citizens from voting in elections for President and Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #82)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:48 PM

110. I was born in India and my dad was

an American citizen, and even though my mother was not, I was considered a natural born American citizen. The father of my India-born half-sister was British. She was considered a British citizen and had to be naturalized to become an American citizen when we came to the U.S. Our younger adoptive sister, born in Japan, had to become naturalized too, when we came to America from Tokyo. Her mother was Japanese, but although her father was an American Army colonel, she was not considered a natural born American citizen at birth. Strange.

EDIT: I suppose that because my younger sister was born out of wedlock, the fact that her father was an American didn't count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #110)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 05:55 PM

111. Foreign born citizen at birth, not necessarily natural born

No question about being a citizen at birth, possibly with requirement for further actions. Considerable debate whether that would qualify you as natural born. I believe not, others posting here believe it would.

The issue of citizen father, unmarried parents gets really messy. Easier now than it was. Mixed all up with inheritance laws, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #111)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 06:06 PM

112. I was born an American citizen. I didn't have to be

naturalized and was therefore "natural born." I have never heard of the category "foreign born citizen at birth." Maybe there is such a category, but I have never, ever heard of it. I don't interpret "natural born" to mean "born in the country that one was born a citizen of."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #112)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 07:07 PM

113. You are citizen under uniform rules for naturalization

The Constitution provides only two methods to become a citizen: to be born in the USA, or to be naturalized. Naturalized covers every method of becoming a citizen except being born on the soil of the country.

That means foreign born children of citizen parents are naturalized citizens at birth. That has always been the case, but it was restated in the 14th amendment.

Children born abroad when only one parent is a citizen have a much more complicated route to secure their citizenship.

http://www.uscitizenship.info/citizenship-library-children.html

Whether you would qualify as a natural born citizen is an even more complicated matter. It is nowhere near settled law in either direction. My personal opinion is that you are not natural born, but until the Supreme Court rules on you candidacy for President, it can only be speculation on anyone's part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #113)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 07:21 PM

114. I disagree with your

"naturalized citizens at birth" interpretation.

from a well-sourced Wiki article on the topic: (I lost the link.)

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.


bold and italics mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #114)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:55 PM

117. Wiki is not adequately sourced

The CRO report is a political document with "bipartisan" support, in part because that line of thought was supportive of both Obama, McCain, and others as qualified as natural born.

It is slightly better than John Yoo's arguments and certainly better than those of several University of Chicago "scholars" who have argued for jus sanguinis as being required in addition to jus soli to qualify as natural born. Some of these socalled scholars even claim that McCain is natural born while Obama is not.

The Wiki articles regarding these topics have been a battleground for the past five years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #117)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:08 PM

118. Anyone who wishes to may go ahead and

consider people like me foreign-born naturalized American citizens. It's really pointless to argue about it. I'm 68 and set in my ways, so I'll keep on calling myself a natural born American, despite having been born in the boonies of India.

Thanks for the information, though. Not life-altering in my case, but interesting just the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #118)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:25 PM

120. No question of citizenship.

Given your age, you would have been subject to roughly the same laws and rulings as Bellei.

I assume you probably moved to the US before you were 18.

I would just claim you as a fellow citizen, period. Once a citizen, not to be taken from you.

This is all some really murky corners of US law. Almost as strange as having 1/3 of US citizens qualifying as Italian citizens, many able to vote in Italian elections even though neither they nor their parents have ever set foot in Italy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #112)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:37 PM

116. Did you or parents take actions to ensure citizenship?

Don't know your age, but did you have to take any action following your birth to ensure your citizenship? With only one parent a citizen, I suspect that further actions were required by statute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #110)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:10 PM

119. Your adopted sister's case was more complicated

She probably ran into special cases particularly this one from State Dept summary of current law.

The child was the parent's legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child's 16th birthday (children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their father); and

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:52 PM

70. I remembered when they discussed ahnold as president

Of course, it was the repugs wanting to get rid of that silly rule.

I think some of the clueless either think hawaii isn't part of the united states or they're still clinging to their talking heads that obama was born in africa; even though, his legal BC states otherwise. Of course, you've got the bigots who think he can't be president because he's a mulatto.

Crazy is what crazy says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:01 PM

26. Do you suffer from such suspicions?

There's no reason to accommodate crazy people. It's not as if it is a controversial part of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:12 PM

51. It's a GREAT rule--I say keep it.

I've no desire for someone along the lines of President Ahhhhhhnuld...and we could have ended up with him, had the rule not been in place.

People who don't have the birth credentials do very well in the Cabinet, if they have any skills at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:56 AM

11. His great grandfather isn't running for president

doesn't matter where he's from--if you asked most of the birthers to produce documents about their great grand parents, considering the age of a lot of them, they'd find that a lot of them weren't born here either. That brings us back to the statement "so? His great grandfather isn't running for president.. he's not running for much of anything, seeing that he's quite dead and has been dead for some time."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:41 PM

37. I think you are missing the point.


Mitt's 'FATHER' was born in Mexico.

Obama's 'father' was born in Kenya and not a US citizen. This what the birthers are filing ballot challenges on President Obama on - they are saying that Obama is not illegible to run for president because they believe that he is not a 'natural born citizen' due to his father being born in Kenya and not being a US citizen.

So, this has nothing really to do with Mitt's grandfather - just Mitt's 'father'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #37)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:21 PM

44. Wait until Rubio runs for President (or gets picked for VP)

 

Both his parents were born in Cuba.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #44)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:31 AM

62. Woohoo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:29 AM

61. And the Constitution refers to the birthplace of the person running for office, not their parents.

This is indeed bigotry and stupidity, which aren't really two separate things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:41 AM

77. still, Mitt's father isn't running for anything this election cycle

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 07:22 PM - Edit history (2)

in fact, the man has served in public office, having been born in Mexico. So, the point is moot as to his country of birth.

it makes no difference where their parents were born--if Romney was born in the US, then he's US citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:05 AM

12. nah, they're still inconsistent

Unless McCain and Obama have been the only ones running for president these last five years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:23 PM

45. The rest running in recent years all had relatives here for centuries

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #45)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:48 PM

47. Obama also has family here going back generations. Santorum's father, like Obama's, was born abroad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #47)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:05 PM

64. I meant both parents

 

Santorum will be mentioned if he gets the nomination, if I had to guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:38 AM

81. McCain is not a natural born citizen

Only two choices for anyone born after 1787 -- be born IN the United States or to be naturalized under uniform rules. McCain falls in that later category. Neither Canal Zone nor Navy base qualify as "IN".

All those Constitutional scholars were mostly responding to Huckabee's birther questions about McCain.

BTW The Act of 1790 is not relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #81)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:43 AM

89. well, I don't agree that being a natural born citizen requires being born IN the United States

Children of citizens (in some cases subject to specific conditions) are citizens by birth. I don't think the case against McCain is ultimately convincing, but as you imply the fact that the birthers focused all their attention on Obama again demonstrates their lack of consistency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #89)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:31 PM

90. Those are citizens at birth, not by birth

If not born in the US ("by birth), then a children born to citizens are citizens "at birth", but they are "naturalized" citizens under current laws defining the uniform rules.

There was a fair amount of discussion regarding McCain initially from Huckabee supporters including controversy regarding his birth certificate and whether he was born on base, in the Canal Zone, or in a hospital yards outside the CZ. I posted some here and a salon.com at the time.

I agree the most fanatical birther efforts have been regarding Obama. It is fueled in part because of various groups since 1787 trying to redefine natural born from it's clear and simple meaning in the Constitution. Even here on DU.

Of course, race provides a lot of the energy to the birthers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #90)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:48 PM

92. the constitution in 1787 simply said "natural born citizen," and didn't distinguish between

jus soli citizenship and jus sanguinis.

Even the most detailed attempt to establish that McCain is ineligible doesn't make that distinction, but rather relies on a gap in the law that covered children born outside of the United States to citizen parents at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=1

At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #92)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:58 AM

93. Constitution has no concept of jus sanguinis citizen

Jus sanguinis citizenship is not a Constitutional concept or term, and never has been.

Jus soli (by birth IN the United States, same as natural born), existing citizen of a State when Constitution was ratified, or naturalized under uniform rules. Those uniform rules are the only way to enact jus sanguinis as one type of naturalization. Naturalized citizens are the only group excluded from the presidency.

There is a very strong legal argument that the CZ was never part of the US and remained part of Panama leased to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #93)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:21 AM

95. the Natural Born Citizen clause doesn't mention jus soli, either

That was my point. There is no specification that natural born citizen refers only to jus soli.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #95)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:49 AM

96. Born in USA vs naturalized

Constitution bestows citizenship by being born in US, jus soli by another name -- natural born.

The discussions at the time about the natural born qualification were not confused about who was being excluded.

The citizenship accorded under statutes regarding children of citizens is the same as that granted to others under related statutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #96)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 02:28 AM

98. natural born isn't another name for jus soli

That's not specified in the constitution, it has never been established by legislation or the courts, and it is hardly clear that it was the intent of the framers (and, indeed, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the framers felt "natural born" to include jus sanguinis).

There are some interesting and challenging arguments that can be made that "natural born citizen" refers only to jus soli, but they are not ultimately convincing (imo -- ianal), nor are they apparently accepted by the majority of scholars. Quoting from a Congressional Research Report (warning: pdf) that came out last year:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."


I suppose one can also make arguments--and some still do--that natural born actually means born in the U.S. to citizen parents, but these are yet more suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #98)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 02:54 AM

99. The final part of that report is weak

I agree it is not settled in the Supreme Court, but this CRO report reads little better than the one by John Yoo and requires the addition of concepts outside the Constitution.

Many of these arguments are by those trying to either justify jus sanguinis as natural born or to require jus singuinis in addition to jus soli in order to qualify as natural born.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #98)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:01 AM

100. Minority of framers wanted jus sanguinis, outvoted

What argument do you find that's supports in the Constitution that natural born means anything other than jus soli? Or that natural born includes jus sanguinis?

ETA How do you reconcile jus sanguinis being part of natural born in light of Rogers v Bellei?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #100)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:26 AM

101. jus sanguinis was part of established English law at the time

Under English law, people born to a father who was the king's subject was a "natural born" subject even if he was born outside the king's realm. That had been true for centuries by the drafting of the constitution. I think the act of 1790 also illuminates the framer's intent, since many of the framers were in that first congress and since the term natural born citizen had never been explicitly defined in U.S. law prior to that. I don't see any distinction in "natural born" between that which is bestowed by blood or by geography. I don't buy the arguments that the distinction holds weight wrt "natural born." Naturalization is a process which by definition confers citizenship to someone who was not a citizen at birth.

"Minority of framers wanted jus sanguinis, outvoted"

I'm not sure that's accurate, and at any rate it still doesn't specify jus soli in the finished document. But Congress had the authority to determine citizenship, and in the very first congress they defined natural born citizen to include jus sanguinis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #101)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:16 AM

103. jus sanguinis requires statutes, legislative not Constitutional grant

The acts of 1790 and 1795 together make a strong statement against jus sanguinis being part of natural born.

The Act of 1790 is the only use of the term "natural born" in legislation. It is often cited to support framers intent to include jus sanguinis in their definition of natural born. What that argument fails to account for is the impact of the Act of 1795 which explicitly repeals the one of 1790 and uses only the term citizen, not natural born citizen.

If one finds intent by the use of natural born in 1790, one must also find intent in 1795. Then, they repealed the earlier act with its use of "natural born". They could easily have granted natural born to some but not all cases covered under the new replacement act. But at this first opportunity to make such distinction, they chose not. If one believes that natural born status can be acquired by legislation, then the only time such legislation was in force was from 1790 to 1795.

If one believes as I do that natural born is acquired only by birth in the US and that the act if 1790 was ill formed, whether deliberately or by accident, then such error was corrected at the earliest opportunity in 1795 and not repeated since.

So it flows that in neither case is there support for the argument that natural born can mean anything except jus soli and only that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #103)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 02:05 PM

105. none of that provides any evidence whatsoever that natural born means *only* jus soli

The argument that "natural born" must not include jus sanguinis because the clause doesn't mention jus sanguinis would carry more weight if it weren't also equally true that the clause also doesn't mention jus soli. The established understanding of "natural born (subject)" at the time and place the constitution was drafted included both jus sanguinis and jus soli. Nothing in the constitution or in any law passed since suggests that the natural born clause intends something different from that. So absent any evidence to the contrary, I think the argument that "natural born citizen" obviously excludes jus sanguinis is not compelling.

The Act of 1790 is the only use of the term "natural born" in legislation. It is often cited to support framers intent to include jus sanguinis in their definition of natural born. What that argument fails to account for is the impact of the Act of 1795 which explicitly repeals the one of 1790 and uses only the term citizen, not natural born citizen.

If one believes as I do that natural born is acquired only by birth in the US and that the act if 1790 was ill formed, whether deliberately or by accident, then such error was corrected at the earliest opportunity in 1795 and not repeated since.


The act of 1795 revokes the act of 1790 because it makes significant changes to the naturalization process. (Again, by definition, naturalization confers citizenship to those who did not have citizenship at birth.) It does not specifically address the issue of natural born citizenship. Affirming that they are citizens does not suggest that they cannot also be natural born citizens. If they had wanted to correct that, it would have been very simple to do so. (And could have been done before 1795.) They didn't then, and never have since. Not when the act of 1795 was revoked in 1798 or when the 1798 act was revoked in 1802.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #105)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 02:19 PM

106. How do you account for Bellei?

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:04 PM - Edit history (3)

Since you seem to be arguing that by birth and at birth bestow the same natural born citizenship, the how do you deal with Rogers v Bellei (1971)?

How do you deal with the fact that citizenship at birth statutes have nearly always required further actions to complete the naturalization process?

ETA Link to discussion of Bellei and its implications.

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol5/iss3/4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #106)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:37 PM

109. Rogers v Bellei doesn't address the term natural born citizen

The Bellei case involves the first sentence of the 14th amendment, which the court ruled did not apply to Bellei. The sentence in question reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The amendment was designed to protect the citizenship of African Americans and makes no attempt to address the definition of "natural born citizen." It should be clear that saying All A are C ("A are citizens") does not in any way imply that Not A is not C ("not A are not citizens") much less that "Not A are Not X" ("not A are not natural born citizens"). The Bellei case doesn't address the definition of natural born citizen (though there is a dissenting opinion which suggests children born abroad may not qualify).

"How do you deal with the fact that citizenship at birth statutes have nearly always required further actions to complete the naturalization process?"

It isn't a naturalization process, because those citizens are citizens at birth. The extra actions (such as reporting the birth to the state department or registering the birth certificate with an embassy) provide proof of that citizenship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #105)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:35 PM

108. See also post #107 and previous. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:11 AM

14. Can you imagine if each of those wives had a couple of Cadillacs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JBoy (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:38 AM

21. Or the horse drawn equivalent of Caddys back in the 1800's

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JBoy (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:39 AM

22. It would go a long way toward reviving the auto industry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:12 AM

15. Kenyans and Mormons are all the same to them...

as in "not White Christians/true Americans".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:22 AM

60. That's it completely

I can't even laugh about this because it is simply based on non-white-non-christian prejudice.

Idiots

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:14 AM

16. youhave got to be kidding me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:15 AM

17. Guilty of schadenfreude.... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:37 AM

20. Just hit me. Maybe they'll want mandatory DNA testing next...

If that happens, they'll find out we're all like Obama said he is, a 'Heinz 57.'

Who will decide what's Amurikan then?

I think native Americans might weigh in on this timely subject.

Okay, just putting it out there. Good OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:43 AM

23. Cheech and Chong - "Born In East L.A."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:46 AM

24. Poor Ricky Santorum still ignored....

Is he jumping up and down yelling "HEY my father was born in Italy and grew up there for a few years."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:02 PM

27. Some of them want to know about that too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:24 PM

28. We have four presidents whose parents weren't born in the U.S.

Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover. Their parents were from England, Ireland or Canada. But, oh! Those aren't "brown" or "black" countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:46 PM

52. Oh please oh please oh please

I admit it.

Since Santorum declared I've been waiting for a post where we could all put "Santorum" and "Oily Taint" in the same subject line in 712 different threads.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:25 PM

29. Anyone still think being Mormon doesn't matter for a GOP candidate.

If he was a "normal" Christian I doubt they would be asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:24 PM

30. Once again, they prove that they haven't got a clue!

It doesn't matter where your father was born. If YOU were born the US (as both Mittens and Obama were), you are a citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BattyDem (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:59 PM

53. They don't believe Obama was born in the USA. They believe he was born in Kenya.

This is due to a statement his African grandmother made, probably in error because of language difficulties or translation. The explanation is rather convoluted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BattyDem (Reply #30)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:15 AM

55. It's even less relevant in Romney's case

 

His father was born a citizen. Both of Mitt's grandparents were US citizens, so when George was born in Mexico, they had to immediately designate whether they wanted him considered a Mexican or American citizen. They chose American citizenship for him.

So even though George wasn't born in the US, he was born a citizen to citizen parents. Same as Tim Tebow (Philippines) and Mike Judge (Ecuador). You still get to be a citizen from birth if your citizen parents have you while they are living/working abroad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #55)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:27 PM

66. But birthers don't buy that "argument" at all ... even if it is factual.

When you tell them Obama's mother was a citizen and it doesn't matter where he was born because her citizenship means he was also a citizen at birth, they go on and on about the whole "US soil" thing. The funny thing is ... the Romney family had their lawyers investigate the citizenship question years ago when George Romney ran for President.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfreedman/2011/04/12/romney-to-trump-obama-doesnt-need-a-birth-certificate/

Of course, facts don't matter to birthers. It's funny how they never minded the fact that John McCain wasn't born in the US!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BattyDem (Reply #66)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:46 PM

69. John McCain was born on a naval base. I believe that's considered American soil. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #69)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 05:06 PM

71. I know. I'm not questioning his citizenship.

My point was that they were willing to accept that explanation of the law without question. Yet when other, equally valid explanations of the law prove the citizenship of people who are a different race or religion, they refuse to accept the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BattyDem (Reply #71)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 10:36 PM

74. Well, they are birthers

 

It's naive to expect consistency and logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #74)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 01:22 PM

78. LOL ... that's true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #69)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 02:56 AM

75. you don't have to be born in the US to be "natural born citizen"

As long as your parents are they register you with the State Department, you are a natural born citizen. The only difference is that instead of a US birth certificate, you will have a "US citizen born abroad." Depending on the country, you may be a dual citizen. The kids of some of my former co workers have those. My niece was born on Okinawa. If the navy base McCain was born at was in the Canal Zone, it would be the same as being born in the US.

http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #75)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:12 AM

76. That's the situation the Romneys were in

 

At the time, it was one or the other - no dual citizenship. They had to decide whether George Romney would be a US citizen or a Mexican citizen. They chose US citizenship for him. His citizenship is as legally ironclad as mine. And I was born in Ohio so there's not much question there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:52 AM

83. That is probably not true regarding natural born

The exact meaning of natural born has never been settled by Supreme Court.

What that link describes is citizen at birth base on rules for naturalization (citizen parents in this case). It does not touch the issue of natural born.

Rogers v Bellei actually denies protections under the 14th to someone born abroad.

Navy base is not part of US regarding citizenship by birth location.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 09:28 AM

88. It was, and it is.

I too was born in the Canal Zone-- Coco Solo NAS, in fact. The only time the question of my citizenship ever came up was years later when I was in the service, trying to get a Top Secret security clearance. My birthplace came up in the background check, but since I hadn't lived in the CZ past the age of 18 months, it was a non-issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doc Holliday (Reply #88)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:53 PM

91. The Canal Zone was covered by specific law after McCain's birth

No question about citizenship if born later, but not natural born citizen. Sorry you can't be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:37 PM

31. Born?

Don't they mean "assembled"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bleever (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:43 PM

38. Maquiladora Mitt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 02:34 PM

33. The Idiocy of Some People

never ceases to astound me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalynn (Reply #33)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 03:43 PM

34. To be more precise .... the idiocy of right-wingnut birthers!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:08 PM

80. Definitely

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:34 PM

40. That whole thing about Romney's Great-grandfather is going to be fun during the campaign!!

But there are other elements to the Romney story that may explain why he doesn’t tell the full tale on the campaign trail. The reason that George was born in Mexico is that his grandfather - Mitt’s great-grandfather - had taken refuge there in order to escape US laws against polygamy. It was this family patriarch, Miles Park Romney, who established the colony and lived there with four wives.

Mitt Romney has decried what he has called the “awful’’ practice of polygamy and has never visited the colony, even though several dozen of his cousins continue to live there.


http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-31/news/31009233_1_mitt-romney-george-romney-romney-story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:21 PM

41. The Rethuglicans teabag monster has turned against them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:34 PM

42. The funniest thing about this is that Michigan

does the same thing Hawaii does. If Rmoney has to ask for a birth certificate he will get that same green certificate of live birth that Pres. Obama first presented but was not good enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:55 PM

43. I'd be much more interested in seeing his tax returns for the past decade or so

Now THOSE would be interesting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:34 PM

46. Mitt-Bone

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:18 PM

48. thats gonna be a pain when Rubio runs as Mitts VP

o_O lol. too funny.

so if John McCain who was born in Panama, I'd assume they'd be up doing the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:21 PM

49. Which of course

Will boggle the mind if any of the actual Christian RIght will show up at the polls in November. If Ron's running it's gonna be huge...

Now if this was on Dem site, it wouldn't matter quite as much...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:10 PM

50. Well, his deddy was called "Chihuahua George" and not because he was small or yippy.

He wasn't--he was a big guy, but he was born in Mexico!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:27 AM

56. In the 1950's

 

Before Eisenhower became president, birthers went after him because they thought he was jewish.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate, under birther rules that is a Natural Born Citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightforfreedom123 (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 10:53 AM

63. What's funny is that Ike didn't meet one of the three requirements

35 years old - check
Born in the US - check
Lived in the US for 14 years ----mmm not really. He was in Europe as late as 1945, there are pictures. I guess they considered any place he lived a "military base" but it always struck me as odd. Anyone who would have brought this up was probably met with "Shut up! This is IKE!"

Actually Ike's parents were JEhovah's Witnesses. Ike was baptized while in office - in a Presbyterian church

34.Dwight D. Eisenhower– Presbyterian Eisenhower's religious upbringing is the subject of some controversy, due to the conversion of his parents to the "Bible Student" movement, the forerunner of the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the late 1890s. Originally, the family belonged to the River Brethren, a Mennonite sect. According to the Eisenhower Presidential Library, there is no evidence that Eisenhower participated in either the Bible Student group or the Jehovah Witnesses, and there are records that show he attended Sunday school at a River Brethren church.
Until he became president, Eisenhower had no formal church affiliation, a circumstance he attributed to the frequent moves demanded of an Army officer. He was baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church in a single ceremony February 1, 1953, just 12 days after his first inauguration, the only president to undergo any of these rites while in office.
Eisenhower was instrumental in the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (an act highly promoted by the Knights of Columbus), and the 1956 adoption of "In God We Trust" as the motto of the USA, and its 1957 introduction on paper currency. He composed a prayer for his first inauguration, began his Cabinet meetings with silent prayer, and met frequently with a wide range of religious leaders while in office.
His presidential library includes an inter-denominational chapel in which he, his wife Mamie, and his firstborn son (who died in childhood) are buried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:30 AM

57. They just won't die, will they n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #57)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:30 PM

67. Arizona is swarming with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:49 AM

59. Will they accept a legal copy, or do they need to see film of Mama Romney popping him out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:28 PM

65. Stop. Think. Isn't Romney a 2 faced idiot in a uniquely American way?

There's only one thing more American than Mitt Romney... and that's us kicking his ass in November. I mean, just because he's manifestly unqualified to be president doesn't mean he's actually unqualified to be president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:31 PM

68. Well drop me with a feather,

They are bipartisan!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:59 PM

72. I'd Settle for Proof that He Was Born

If the factory in Stepford did guys, they'd look like Mittens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #72)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:50 AM

102. On Earth!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:05 PM

73. I knew that Mitt Romney was a Kenyan.

trying to pass as an American, indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:00 PM

79. I think they're trying to make themselves look evenhanded.

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I bet the Mitt Romney birther movement is forgotten within two weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 08:51 AM

87. did they ever go after grampy mccane for being born in Panama?

I know, it was a US base.

But that doesn't matter or should matter to the insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #87)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:04 AM

94. Yes, went after McCain. See above

They chased McCain's birth certificate, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 07:27 PM

115. How come they never hounded McCain on this?

He actually was born in a foreign country.

Also, don't those nut cases do any research? It doesn't matter where Mitt's parents were born as long as he was born here. Now there is a load of grumbling about undocumented aliens having kids here, so let's just say if his dad was born in Mexico and entered this country legally, it still doesn't matter and if his mother was born here, it wouldn't matter if his father wasn't legally here. I mean they are truly idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 08:38 AM

122. yes, but unlike the President, the media isn't 24/7 promoting this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread