The Brownshirts...err...Birthers ARE BACK!

So for those who are unaware, Birtherism is by far and away my favorite conspiracy theory. Which means I am THRILLED they are trying to get involved in this presidential race too.

Anyways, why are they my favorite.

Mostly because its the only conspiracy theory I've ever heard in which, using only the "logic" of the theory itself you can disprove it.

Quick summary:

According to Birthers you can ONLY be a natural born citizen if your parent was. And according to Birther's Barack Obama's mother was a natural born american from Kansas. Therefore following their own logic, Barack Obama is in fact a citizen no matter where he was born or who his father was.

Now its worth pointing out, that in attempting to get around this, the birthers believe Obama was born in Kenya and "For a person born outside the United States to be a citizen at birth, at least one parent must have lived in the United States for at least 10 years, five of those years after the age of 14" which Obama's 18 year old mother wouldnt qualify for.

Which would be a problem, if birthers didnt also contestant Obama's sire claiming it may not have been Barack Obama Sr, but was instead Frank Marshall Davis....who by the way would be a natural born american from Kansas, never left the country and would have been in his 60's when Obama was born.

Meaning that everything in that second paragraph, and all of the first paragraph except the first sentence is irrelevant, and, per their own beliefs, the Birthers are lying to you (presumably intentionally given that it is solely their own beliefs that got us the proof Obama is qualified) to manipulate you.

Now how does this play into this election?

Well it turns out the Birthers have found new targets for "ineligible" people running for President

In this case Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Bobby Jindal. (who by the way are all 100% eligible to run for any office they wish according to me)

And of course as usual the logic is impeccable. Per the birthplace of birtherism, the internet Website WND:

"The question has been raised for Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and even Rick Santorum – as it was for Barack Obama and John McCain before them – as to whether they are “natural born citizens” and thus eligible to be president of the United States."

I like how of ALL of these guys, the candidate who was crowned the hope of the GOP in 2016 literally within seconds of the polls closing in 2012 (rubio), the guy who was talked about since his election in 2012 as the new hope of the GOP (cruz), the guy who was supposed to run and win (but declined) in 2012 (Jindal) it is Rick Santorum, the guy no one ever expected to do well who merits the "even" wording...like he's the most shocking.

And you know what, maybe he is.

Here look at the four candidates:

Rick Santorum is the white one. Thats right it might not JUST be brown and black people who cant be president...we actually found a white guy this time.

"This term, which comes directly from the United States Constitution, takes some explaining. It is often misunderstood or deliberately twisted. Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution reads as follows:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The Constitution does not define the term “natural born.” But there is a pretty substantial historical record of what the Founding Fathers meant by the term. Basically, they wanted to assure that no future commander in chief would have divided loyalties.

The problem is that this definition has never fully been tested. There is no official body that determines whether a presidential candidate meets the definition. So the court challenges to Obama’s eligibility made sense."

Now actually as it turns out, there IS in fact an official body that determines eligibility, its called the Congressional Research Service, and they've been doing this for a long time (at least since the days of Barry Goldwater and George Romney), which is why all the court challenges to Obama got laughed out of court, with at least 1 birther lawyer facing criminal charges for filing. 

"Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention served in the first Congress, which passed the Naturalization Act of 1790.

In this act, they defined “natural born citizen” to include “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States.”

These founders were less concerned that a child be born in the United States than that he born to two parents of undivided loyalty"

This is in fact actually true (at least the first two paragraphs). Problem is, it was replaced in 1795 (and again in 1798 and again in 1802....and all 3 of those replacement laws stripped out the part about Natural Born Citizens or any definition thereof. But yes, for a 5 year period over 200 years ago, the Birthers are correct. 

"What is clear is that a person born overseas of foreign parents, like the Austria-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, is not eligible to be president.

John McCain was born in Panama. There is no doubt that his parents were loyal citizens. His father, who would later become an admiral in the U.S. Navy, was stationed there.

Still, in 2008 McCain had to jump through all kind of hoops, including a hearing in the U.S. Senate, to confirm his eligibility."

Except, you know, McCain didnt have to do shit. thats kinda why he didnt do anything in 2000 when he ran the first time. And why he made sure it was a non-binding (IE no real force of law) resolution...so basically it wouldnt actually change anything, when he did do it in 2008. 

What McCain realized is that, there was a decent chance his opponent in 2008 (unlike 2000) would be a black man, and that there were a lot of racists (we will call them birthers) who would never accept a black or brown president but that he could totally get the ball rolling on that by pretending to get his [already confirmed by the CRS] pretend confirmed by the US senate.

Now the next 6 or so paragraphs of the article I've been quoting are re-litigating the legitimacy of Obama.....legitimacy that, as I showed above, the birther movement actually already gives him by virtue of their own beliefs, so we are going to go ahead and skip that part and get back to the new challenges to the 4 republicans. 

"The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: “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.”

Obama supporters insist that the 14th amendment makes anyone born in the United States a natural born citizen. But the two senators who wrote this amendment felt otherwise.

They included the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to exclude the children of foreigners who claimed allegiance to another country. Supreme Court rulings have upheld this interpretation."

Now I'm not actually sure who this article is referring to, as most people credit the writing of the 14th amendment to ONE guy, named John A. Bingham who was actually a member of the House of Representatives...which probably also explains why I cant find any Supreme Court rulings upholding the interpretation of the two fake authors....anyways

"What this means is that even if Barack Obama had been born in Hawaii his status as a “natural born citizen” is not a given.

The same question hangs over the head of the Republican governor from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. His parents were citizens of India in the United States on visas when he was born in Baton Rouge in 1971.

No one doubts that Jindal was born in the United States, but what is not clear is where the loyalty of his parents lay and whether Jindal is a natural born citizen under the law."

I actually agree with this. My grandmother never lost her English accent until the day she died. So clearly her loyalty was to her homeland of England and not the US....so she was clearly a traitor. Granted shes dead, so theres not much we can do about it

In that same vein, I'm pretty sure her daughter (my mother) has eaten quite a few English muffins, which means she clearly inherited her mothers loyalty and not any real loyalty to the country of her birth. So she can and should totally be deported.

I'm just saying I cant honestly tell you where my own families loyalties lie. I mean we are white so I assume most birthers would say we loyal to this country but who knows.

The fact that he [Jindal] changed his name from “Piyush” to “Bobby” after a character in “The Brady Bunch” would make for interesting testimony in a potential court case.

No it really wouldnt as the presidency's of Leslie King and William Blythe have already proven. By the way, if you cant remember those presidents, see if this sounds more familiar Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton. Of if you prefer, Hiram U. Grant....who changed his name after a clerk at West Point fucked it up and gave him the wrong name and he decided he preferred the clerks mistake of Ulysses S. instead....same idea with Presidents Thomas [Woodrow] Wilson, Stephen [Grover] Cleveland, John [Calvin] Coolidge, and David [Dwight] Eisenhower.

But yes, there you have it the case against Jindal: His parents emigrated and he uses a nickname. And he's BROWN. Mostly that last one.

"Marco Rubio was born in Florida. His parents fled Cuba before Castro took power, made a few trips back during the first days of the revolution, the latest being in 1961.

Rubio was born in 1971. His parents were naturalized in 1975. Clearly, when Rubio was born, they had no other allegiance."

And theres the arguement against Rubio... his parents, who legally came here in 1956, waited a little bit before deciding to become citizens...but otherwise were here legally and never did anything suspicion. Therefore totally loyal to Castro. Also BROWN. again, mostly that last one.

"Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in 1970. Unlike Rubio and Jindal, he was the child of a citizen, his mother, Elizabeth Wilson Cruz.

His father, Rafael, left Cuba in 1957 and has a clear track record throughout his adult life as an enemy of the Castro regime. He was naturalized in 2005.

For a person born outside the United States to be a citizen at birth, at least one parent must have lived in the United States for at least 10 years, five of those years after the age of 14.

Obama’s mother was 18 when he was born. She did not fit that definition. Ted Cruz’s mother did meet that definition."
Except not so much. According to Ted Cruz himself, on his father: “My dad asked if he could join Castro in the mountains and keep fighting,” 

Real anti Castro there.....

By the way that is the entirety of the argument against Cruz....which seems to translate roughly to:

  

Except that you know, he's BROWN...or at least partly BROWN, as his mother was white so its totally worth insinuating, but we need to stop short of actually claiming he's ineligible cause unlike the other 2 so far, he's got some white in him so we actually need to prove he can run.  

"As to Cruz, Rubio and Jindal, the courts would likely rule in favor of all three of them, Jindal’s case being the weakest and Cruz’s, despite his Canadian birth, quite possibly the strongest.

To insist at this stage that none of them is eligible is pure supposition, but one that has the full blessing of the Democratic National Committee."

So to sum up, despite publishing an article challenging their legitimacy it turns out all 3 are legitimate. And any challenge to that, like we one we just did, is really the fault of the democrats....because you know, unlike us they are the racists.

By the way, thats the end of the article and as such I'm left with one question

What the fuck happened to Rick Santorum? Remember him, the one white dude whos name you floated at the top...with the modifier "even"  because of how shocking his ineligibility was? did you just FORGET about him? or is it just because he's not BROWN that you just assumed your readers wouldnt actually need to know his eligibility and assume he is eligible?

Luckily I'm not the only one who noticed that, and the WND.com author was actually interviewed (by TPM.com) and asked that very question:

So what’s the deal with Santorum? Why would his eligibility potentially be in question?

and the answer is:

That is the weakest of the cases. Because his father was born in Italy and there’s some question as to whether his father was a citizen at the time Santorum was born. That’s a strange case. Only the purest of the constitutionalists would take up that challenge.

Wait a minute....only 1 american parent, but that makes the weakest case? as opposed to Cruz who is in exactly the same boat. Well except one of his parents was BROWN, and sanatorium's were both white.

Also I'm pretty sure, being born here to possibly not american parents is exactly the same argument that is your ENTIRE case against, Jindal and Rubio.....well again except that they are BROWN.

So to sum up:
White Guy (Santorum): weakest case to make he's not eligible
Half White guy(Cruz): Second weakest case
BROWN guy from country who's immigrants vote Republican (Rubio): third weakest case
BROWN guy from country who's immigrants dont vote Republican (Jindal): BROWN! I mean strongest case he's not really an American.

And there you have it a birther guide to determining who is or isnt eligible to be president....its all done by shades of BROWN and likelyhood of those people voting for GOP.