Oh no! That is where YOU are wrong. Somebody DOES (or DID) agree with them and I have found out the ORIGINAL place where the Vattle Birthers are getting all their stupid stuff from, and I am going to tell on them to EVERYBODY!!!
Sooo, sit down first, because you will NEVER believe where these stupid arguments are coming from:
The LOSING side in a 1844 case called Lynch versus Clarke!!! YES, the Vattle Birthers are digging up the losing side arguments from a case in 1844, 167 years ago. Then, they are dressing them up and giving them to people here like it is a new thought or something. That is where all the Naturalization Act of 1790 stuff was first argued, and the Shanks/Dupont thing, and the Snug Harbor thing.
All of those arguments were used then and lost. I am going to do a lot of Internet Article on this. If you want some information, I will cut and paste from that decision here for you.
But this is really pretty low down and nasty of the Vattle Birthers to do this, to try to keep Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal from running because of 167 year old losing stuff. And not telling the conservatives here about this trick they are pulling. And how could they not know they were the LOSING arguments, since that is where they got them from. They should be totally ashamed of themselves!!!
Yes, it appears the Vattel birthers are losers all around. The birther’s heads will explode if either Rubio or Jindal are nominated for VP. Although I don’t think they have much influence in the Republican Party, if they make a stink to try to defeat the ticket and try to get people to vote 3rd party because of their crazy theory, I hope and predict that they will be completely written off by all conservatives. The 2012 election is too important to allow a bunch of nutjobs to sabotage our efforts against Obama. Thank you for the information regarding the 1844 case. I googled it and you are right, the same arguments made by Vattel birthers were made by the losers in that case. Somehow I am not surprised they latched onto a losing argument from a 167 year old case to support their losing argument!