I agree and so does Corsi, who has declared Mitt to be NBC.
The only point I made (and it is only remotely probable) is that Mitt's mom MIGHT NOT have met the 14A requirement of being born “under the jurisdiction” of the US, depending on what further evidence shows. Corsi says she was “considered to be” but doesn't go into the evidence.
It is currently an open question as to whether “anchor babies” are 14A citizens. I happen to believe they are not because Wong Kim Ark was a narrow case which depended not just on his birth on US soil but on his parents domicile etc. Did Mitt's English grandfather enter the US legally and establish US domicile and was he under US jurisdiction, or did he only briefly enter the US as a UK subject and then return to the UK shortly after the birth of his daughter. Not likely, but what are the facts?
It is highly probable that Mitt's mom was NOT an “anchor baby” and was a 14A citizen as affirmed by WKA, but I haven't seen the evidence.
At a minimum it is clear that George Romney was NOT NBC and this would be a further embarrassment to the GOP elites and to Mitt to have to admit that his own father ignored the Constitution, just like Obama, to further his own ambitions.
This has been a remarkable public deception campaign. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Justia.com and Center for American Progress have been working with the Republican legislature, encouraging them with promises that Congress, even a Republican Congress, will ask no questions. Needless to say the Justice Department will never prosecute, and federal judges will never grant standing with Obama in office.
If you don't follow the remarkable analysis being done by Leo Donofrio, you should. Reading Wong Kim Ark was always difficult, but it turns out, there was a reason. Justice Gray was, probably with full knowledge, ignoring a written warning by the court that a citation upon which Gray was depending, and which was key to what eventually enabled naturalizing children of illegal aliens. The court had noted that error in a previous case, and the history is well-documented. As he has discovered and documented the illegitimacy of Chester Arthur, and provided a cogent analysis of Minor v. Happersett Donofrio has begun to explore and explain the error in Justice Gray's case, Wong Kim Ark.
While no one is currently talking about the precedent created in Minor, many lawyers clearly understood, or they wouldn't have scrubbed the versions of the cases published on the Internet, and at Cornell. Our framers meant The Constitution to be understandable to literate citizens. They said so. It was part of the reason for not including definitions of terms in The Constitution. Madison explained that definitions of terms change. As Justice Waite pointed out, "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar..." No one should lament that we will never be provided access to Obama's historical documents. We have clear law, but those afraid to lose their prerogatives, their jobs as sycophants, our legislators, pretend now that, perhaps just in this case, that the Constitution doesn't matter.
It may be that there was a purpose behind the labyrinthine, and largely irrelevant meandering of Gray's argument. He obscured the issue of having had alien parents to obscure the illegitimacy of his patron, Chester Arthur, and, probably inadvertently, created the opportunity which wasn't realized for at least fifty years, which drew so many mothers and families to cross our borders illegally so that their children would be made citizens.
There was another attempt by a Republican, former Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes was born to British subjects. He knew he wasn't qualified. He was exposed in the largest law journal in the US in 1916 by Breckenridge Long, later to work in Roosevelt's state department and also made and ambassador. Huges returned to the court and was made Chief Justice. The case made by Long sites all the usual sources, though I don't recall whether he realized that Minor made Vattel’s common-law into positive law. There is and was no law preventing Hughes from running, just as Calero, McCain, and Obama may have broken no law, even when all three knew they failed to satisfy Article II Section 1. But Hughes later wrote the decision, in 1939, Perkins v. Elg, in which Marie Elg, born to recent immigrants from Sweden, in New York, and taken back to Sweden when her father got a job during the depression, to never have lost her natural born citizenship, since it was granted by nature (he may have said God), and could not be removed by statute. She, the decision said, could, after 14 years residence and attaining the age of 35, run for president.
I do believe, much as I appreciated the Swift Boat revelations, that WND would always have clarified the undoubted legal definition included in over a dozen Supreme Court Cases, and helped the public understand JustiaGate and other proof that they were victims of a remarkable confidence deception, a con job, to hide Republican complicity.
About Mitt there seems little doubt that he is eligible, and a natural born citizen, just as there is no doubt that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, along with McCain and Obama, are not. There is a Latina governor, who is clearly conservative in a Southwestern state - perhaps New Mexico. Someone will correct me, because I probably have it wrong, and have not followed her career, but I believe her name is Susana Martinez. I vaguely recall that the left is already attacking her, which is a good sign.
It is most remarkable that no legislator, no “conservative pundit,” has the clarity or courage to publicly explain why the words of two Chief Justices, including our greatest, the originator of the 14th Amendment, and crystalline writing of Chief Justice Morrison Waite, are not still as valid as they have been since George Washington followed John Jay's advice and approved their inclusion in the Constitution. When Chief Justice John Marshall, then the representative to the Constitutional Convention, approved the meaning of Article II, can anyone argue that he didn't know what the words meant? When Marshall later cited Vattel as the most concise source for the definition, would anyone believe that he had changed his mind about the meaning he quoted, from our Nation's first law book, at our Nation's first law school, which Marshall attended? Our pundits have feet of clay. Our legislators are all cowards. Hatch and Conyers submitted bills to amend Article II, as did Obama, Clinton, McCaskill, Leahy... They have subverted The Constitution, both parties, and the result may result in a third party.