RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | September 29, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?
September 29, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's Emmy in Loveland, Colorado. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, it's great to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Hey, I'm no fan of the establishment.
They irritate me most of the time, but what if they want Christie to run for the same reason I want him to run?
Because he's the best at articulating conservatism, besides you and maybe Marco Rubio,
but there's no one else out there.

RUSH: That's an interesting question.
Let me ask you, why do you think they're not begging Rubio to run?
Rubio has been just as adamant as Christie that he doesn't want to run.
In a contest of conservatism, Rubio wins versus Christie.
So why are they not asking Rubio to run?

CALLER: You know, I don't know. Maybe it's --

RUSH: Well, part of it is -- (crosstalk)

CALLER: He'd be my second choice.

RUSH: Part of it is, I think,
that they genuinely believe that whoever the other nominees are can't win.
That's another thing that frosts me.
I think Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd could beat Obama in this election coming up because I think this is going to largely be about Obama.
It's going to be a referendum on his outright destruction of the wealth-creating genius of this country.
I think Elmer Fudd could win, but I'm more concerned than that.
I don't want to just get rid of Obama,
I want to take advantage of the opportunity we have to finally get a genuine, full-fledged, unapologetic conservative
because this is going to be a major task, Emmy, rolling this stuff back.
It's going to take more than one election, and it's going to take somebody fearless.
And we're not going to roll this stuff back having compromise and bipartisanship as our primary objectives.

CALLER: I agree.

RUSH: I think as far as the establishment's concerned, there are two things.
They don't want a conservative to win for that reason,
plus they do want to win.
And I think they probably think
Christie has a better chance than anybody else up there of beating Obama.
That's my guess. But I think what will happen is this:
Whoever gets the nomination, if it is somebody outside the approval of the establishment,
what then will happen is
that all these establishment types will then start trying to buddy up to the winner,
want to be part of his administration,
and then spend the rest of their lives saying
they were there at the right hand of this great, terrific president.
That's what happened to Reagan.
Half the people that opposed Reagan did end up, especially in the second term, doing things in his administration,
and they made the rest of their life career out of it.

To this day, some of these people still guest on television shows as Ronald Reagan's X, or Ronald Reagan's Y.
Even the during the era of Reagan is over period, which Mitch Daniels also uttered,
I should say, even when they were saying the era of Reagan was over,
still some of these marginal characters in the Reagan Administration's second term are still out there, claiming
they were there, they were in the inner circle, they were making all these decisions. (interruption)
I know it's a serious question, Snerdley.
Why aren't people telling Rubio it's not up to him?
You've got Chris Christie saying,
"It's got to be in me.
It isn't in me."
"Well, it's not up to you."
Why aren't they saying it to Rubio?
Because Rubio would win in a walkover.
Rubio would win in a landslide over Obama.

I'm hearing Bob McDonnell, Virginia, is the preferred veep candidate.
I wouldn't waste that on Rubio.
Emmy, thanks for the call.

Folks, it's not true that other conservatives are not well articulating our beliefs.
What's happening is
that they're all competing with each other for time during these debates.
That's a crowded stage up there
and they are having to actually face each other and contrast and compare themselves to each other.
Christie doesn't have to do this.
And this could be a well-planned strategery.
Look at it this way:
You've got the people that have announced and they're on the stage of these debates.
They have 30 seconds here, a minute there, but some of them get an unfair amount of time.
Some of them don't get very many questions asked of them.
Some, the questions that are asked are gotcha types.

They don't have clearly an unfettered opportunity to explain themselves on such a crowded stage.
They actually having to face each other, contrast and compare themselves to each other.
But Governor Christie isn't having to do any of that.
He can go give a speech at the Reagan Library or release a YouTube video,
and there's no challenge on the issues and there's nobody out there disagreeing or contrasting or harping on it.
He can say what he says about global warming or gun control, immigration, what have you,
and he's not getting dirty in the process. Nobody's opposing him.
Nobody is disagreeing with what he's saying.
He has a free ride, so to speak.

Perry, same thing.
Perry had a free ride before he jumped in.
Look at what happened to Perry when he got in.
He announces, he gets in, automatically jumps to the top of the list, becomes the target of everybody on stage.
He's not an accomplished debater and wasn't prepped for it.
Look what has happened to Perry.
Christie is not running that risk. Could be a good strategy.
Christie is out there making these speeches and YouTube videos and they stand all alone.
No disagreement, no challenging to any of it.
But Perry jumped in, very little was said about the specifics of his record.
I'm not attacking his record. I'm just saying it was not as carefully scrutinized.
Christie would go through that, too, if he got in.

So as far as Christie is concerned, there's an understandably good strategy in not getting in now.
Now, at some point he's going to have to.
But he gets a free ride all the way down the road where he's not in.
Once he gets in, everything changes.
Everybody on that stage will be gunning for him,
and things about his record that some of you may not know will surface.
And then you'll be scratching your heads going,
"Gee, can't we all get along?
Why are we tearing each other up?"
Nature of the beast.

But Rubio, Rubio would win in a walkover.
He's conservative. He's articulate. He's great-looking.
He's Hispanic and sounds very smart.
How can he possibly lose?
If this were the Democrat Party,
the party father would probably tell Obama to step aside and let Rubio run,
if Rubio were a Democrat.
There are more Hispanic voters now than there are blacks,
and Rubio's got more experience than Obama had when he decided to run.
I don't know how many times Rubio has voted "present" versus Obama.

Here's Richard, El Segundo, California.
Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, great speaking with you.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.

RUSH: Great to have you, sir.

CALLER: Your theme this morning has been Republican enthusiasm. Of course that equates to the voter turnout.
I understand that one of the major factors in us losing in '08 was that
Republicans were, quote, mad at Bush and many stayed home.
To me, that's ridiculous and childish.
We can't afford another four years of anything close to this socialist agenda.

RUSH: That happened in '06, by the way, too.

CALLER: I'm sure it's happened a number of times.

RUSH: Republicans stayed home because
they were mad at Republicans in Congress spending all the money.

CALLER: Yeah. I don't recall an election in my lifetime where it wasn't a choice of the lesser of the evils.
We've got to make some intelligent choices here
and it's absolutely essential that we must turn out in droves in order to overcome this obstacle.

RUSH: Frankly -- it's still 14 months out -- but I don't think that's a problem here.

CALLER: I hope you're correct.
We have to all do whatever we can to gin up the enthusiasm level and get these people to the polls.
They've got to understand what's at stake.

RUSH: I think they do. I think you'd be surprised.
I think you're going to be stunned. The voter enthusiasm...
The Gallup poll that's out today finds a 27 percentage point lead in voter enthusiasm, Republican over Democrat. (interruption)
Well, frankly, I'm not hearing people saying if it's X, they're not going to vote.
If I start hearing that, I'll talk to them about it. I'll fix it.
I'm not going to put up with that this time.
I'm not going to put up with that, "If it's X I'm not going to vote." (interruption)
Who? (interruption)
No. Shoot them at me!
If you've got some people who say
if Romney is the nominee they're not voting,
shoot them at me.

Let me just say, I haven't actually heard that specifically.
It doesn't surprise me. Some people think that.
I do know that there's a lot of passion for the proposition that Romney can't win,
and that if he does it's not enough to actually start rolling back what's going on.
Anyway, look, the reason why they're not pushing Rubio...
I'm going to answer my own question.
That's what I do.
I ask myself the best questions I'm ever asked and, therefore, I give the best answers.
They're not pushing Rubio because while they praise him, they don't think he has had enough experience yet.

And Rubio is --
sorry to say this, folks -- another example of the RINOs being wrong.
In case you have forgotten, Rubio was not initially supported by the Republican establishment.
Charlie Crist was.
I have not forgotten this.
Crist was supported by the Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican millionaires and billionaires.
Crist was supported by McCain and Graham, and on and on.
Rubio was the Tea Party candidate.
Rubio was the conservative candidate, the candidate supported by conservative talk radio.
Rubio was the outsider. But look what's happened.
Now that Rubio has won,
"Oh, yeah, everybody was involved in the campaign!
Everybody had a role in electing Rubio!"

You people have forgotten:
Charlie Crist was the guy,
and Rubio kept coming on and on and on, and the conservative energy behind him and his conservatism triumphed
-- and Crist started talking to Democrats about a role in the party.
The RINOs had nothing to do with Rubio triumphing.
The RINOs weren't even in his camp to start with.
Another reason why they're not pushing Rubio is he's too conservative for them.
With Obama on any ballot, this whole notion of "lesser of two evils," I don't think exists.
Nobody's in that camp on our side.
There is no "almost an Obama" on our side, even Romney.
I think this "lesser of two evils" business gets thrown out, too.
There's a whole lot of conventional wisdom here that's going to be stood on its head before this is all over.
Don't doubt me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the Rubio/Crist election is almost a great microcosm of what we are talking about:
The Republican establishment versus an insurgent conservative Tea Party.
If you go back and try to remember that, Rubio came from nowhere.
He was seen as unelectable.
"Way too extreme. Too much of a risk.
Charlie Crist, he's the elected governor. He's the sure bet.
Charlie Crist will give us the majority in the Senate.
Charlie Crist is the way we need to go.
Who cares that Crist may as well have been a Democrat?
We need another (R), somebody who has an (R) beside their name.
We don't care whether they're conservative or not.
We just need the numbers here because we want to be in charge of the money.
We want the committee chairmanships."

You remember who the first prominent politician to support Rubio was?
It was Jim DeMint, South Carolina Senator.
Jim DeMint was the first prominent politician to come out and support Rubio.
Rubio, the outsider, fighting his way in.
Now, after he wins, the RINOs, the establishment come to his side (after Charlie Crist imploded) and they talk him up for vice president.
But don't forget:
There wouldn't be any Marco Rubio in the Senate today
except for the conservative movement and Tea Party movement
and a conservative effort to beat back the establishment.
Rubio, I'm not saying he had no role. Don't misunderstand.
He was, of course, key, but he had the Republican establishment against him.
It's almost, as I say, a microcosm of what we are talking about and facing today as we choose a nominee.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

Weekly Standard: It’s Not About You - William Kristol

New York Post: Christie Seriously Considering Presidential Bid after GOP Prodding

AP: Tea Party Darling Sen. Marco Rubio Writing Memoir



RUSH:

[patlin]

Edward J. Erler whom Levin misquotes in his book & on air:

Consider as well that in 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: “The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy.” The common law established what was characterized as an “indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance,” a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government.

In sum, this legacy of feudalism - which we today call birthright citizenship - was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868...

The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe exclusive allegiance to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of such allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship - and dual allegiance - is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state.

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=12508

Again, the subject matter at hand is Mark's unethical abuse of the law by misquoteing it to suit his personal political beliefs.

[DiogenesLamp]

Because of the fictitious notion that the US adopted dual citizenship, loyalty has eroded to almost nothing. When a man comes from a communist country and then waits 20 yrs to file a petition to become a citizen just who's how deep home country loyalty lies. And this is proven by the fact that Rubio is on the side of the backdoor dream act/amnesty. He didn't get that view from American history, it had to come from what was instilled in him through his father who lived here for 20 years, yet still remained a citizen of his home country in hopes that the political tides would change thus he would be able to take his family and move back to that home country.

It does beg the question; If your intention was to be an American, why wait 20 years? It certainly seems as if he held out hope for a "free Cuba" to which he intended to return. More's the pity for his son; Sunk on a technicality.

[patlin]

It certainly seems as if he held out hope for a “free Cuba” to which he intended to return

Exactly, loyalty to ones home country runs deep as was shown during the revolution when children were pitted against parents & husband against wives. That is the entire crux of feudalism, to pit families against each other for the sake of an all powerful government.

This is a critical issue that needs to be resolved. But it will not be settled in the courts, rather it needs to be settled in Congress where the SCOTUS just correctly ruled that according to the US Constitution Congress has full plenary power over all aspects if immigration including that of children born to aliens on US soil. Plenary power of Congress is the only truth of birthright citizenship that Levin has actually spoken the truth on. Thank goodness I have the audio of his words archived & saved through Carbonite.

[Yosemitest]

I mentioned "Judges" because in Mark Levin's "Conservative Manifesto", it would correct the problem of activist Judges.
Read it for yourself.
Mark Levin's credibility is not at question, as far as I'm concerned.

Unlike you, I can't sit at a computer all day. I have other thinks I have to do.
Hence the delay in my response.
Now after further reading, I find this (lower forth of the linked page):

To summarize;
a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States,
means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth.
This does not Include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien parents who,
although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States,
and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States.
Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of War
as a part of a hostile military force, and, as a consequence not present with the consent of the United States,
and not subject to the laws of the United States.
But, this does Include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States
“In amity” t.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, Luria v. U.S., 231 US 9, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.

DiogenesLamp, if you don't mind, I'd like your opinion to the above quote from the bottom of the linked page next to last paragraph.

Natural Born – Congressional Record (House) June 14 1967,

[patlin]

Like you said to me: give me a link to an actual copy of the 1967 congressional record

don't give me diatribe from a liberal left leaning website that was created to support the notion that obama was always eligible.

For the record, I have read the entire 1967 record & what is posted is edited to fit the views of the website. Any true conservative freeper knows that any site that purports anything written by “FOGGY” has been proven to twist the truth. So much for your credibility OBOT!!!

[patlin]

You see the trap that Obots always fall into is the fact that at the time George Romney was born, Mexico did not recognize children born in Mexico to resident aliens in as citizens of Mexico. The were listede as citizens of the country of the parents. Thus George Romney was born an American citizen & nothing else. Knowing the law is critical if you are going to spout off & paste info that you have no clue what it pertains to. Especially propaganda from an established OBOT website.

[Yosemitest]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20829167/Natural-Born-Citizen-Congressional-Record-6-14-1967-p-15875-80
It's really too small to read.

[patlin]

Let's start the lesson. What Foggy leaves out is the opening which states:

Mr Dowdy: I have recently read an unpublished essay or brief on the meaning of the phrase as it may apply to a current prominent possible candidate for the office of President (names the person). As it is not otherwise available, and may be of interest to the Members of this Congress and others, I would incorporate in the Record as a part of my remarks, that it might MY BE EASILY AVAILABLE FOR CONSIDERATION WITH OTHER DISSERTATIONS ON THE SUBJECT, TO SHED WHATEVER LIGHT IT MERITS.

Then the writer of the UNPUBLISHED paper goes on to say that the US adopted in whole, English feudal law as the definition of citizen when in fact the very 1st Supreme court case after the adoption of the US Constitution says otherwise. Then the most unhonorable judge who wrote the UNPUBLISHED essay went on to misquote Mexican law from information furnished to him, rather than actually looking up the law himself. It is no wonder that this essay was never published and only made it into the archives of Congress to die a slow death.

[Yosemitest]

" ...propaganda from an established OBOT website."

WHAT are you talking about????????????????

[Yosemitest]

I see NOTHING of what you are talking about "unpublished essay or brief" on the http://www.scribd.com/doc/20829167/Natural-Born-Citizen-Congressional-Record-6-14-1967-p-15875-80 scrib.com site.

Are you trying to mislead again?

[patlin]

It's really too small to read

Interesting as I have it in print & it has always read just fine. One could say that that entire bogus UNPUBLISHED essay was written specifically for the one that proffered it for congressional review. The same as Obama uing Tribe to write the dissertation for S.Res.511 in which Tribe interjects Obama at the end as if to sanitize Obama’ eligibility by using quotes from dissenting Supreme Court opinions as well as English law that the founders clearly had rejected. Like Christianity who only reads the back of the book, politically bias people and their posse of detractors only read the front of St George Tucker's Blackstone & disregard the back wherein Tucker tears apart Blackstone & English law and then corrects it with the proper use of natural law used by the founders. Thus the problem Mark has, he obviously was taught during the liberal parts of his legal education to quote only the front of the book when personal politics are involved, Constitution be damned!

[patlin]

WHAT are you talking about????????????????

OK, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. The best & fastest way to ruin your credibility is to cite from a known OBOT site. Any site that links to anyone named FOGGY, PJ FOGGY, DrConspiracy or obamaconspiracy, etc, etc is nothing but a site to detract from the truth. They take quotes then edit & parse them to fit their delusion that feudal birthright citizenship is equal to Article natural born citizenship. If you want to be taken with credibility, I wouldn't be quoting anything from any website that supports & claims Obama is eligible.

[patlin]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 14, 1967 pg 15875, column 2, paragraph 3

[Yosemitest]

Are you telling me that "June 14, 1967 Congressional Record - House, pages 15975 through 15880" is a lie, and didn't happen?

Are you really tedlling me that ... on Page 15880 of the scrib.com site, the middle column, second paragraph, which says ...(quoted below) ...is a LIE?

To summarize;
a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States,
means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth.
This does not Include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien parents who,
although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States,
and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States.
Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of War
as a part of a hostile military force, and, as a consequence not present with the consent of the United States,
and not subject to the laws of the United States.
But, this does Include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States
“In amity” t.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, Luria v. U.S., 231 US 9, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.

[patlin]

Are you telling me that “June 14, 1967 Congressional Record - House, pages 15975 through 15880” is a lie, and didn't happen?

Putting words in my mouth does not help your cause the same as citing propaganda from an OBOT website will not merit you any credibility as it has been proven to be taken out of context, i.e. the quote you prove, as nowhere IN ANY SCOTUS decision is a child born to aliens called “natural born”. This UNPUBLISHED essay states that WKA was deemed a natural born citizen, when in fact the opposite IS true, WKA was deemed “as much a citizen” (in the sense of rights) as the “natural born”. WKA claimed to be natural born, but the court refused to uphold that by stating fictitiously that according to statute, WKA was a citizen using English law instead of 100 years of settled US law to make the decision, the most current one at the time being a the courts decision written by Gray himself that upheld the 14th as meaning birth on soil alone constitutes citizenship & in that case he did cite 100 yrs of US law. The Elk case upheld the 14th as being constitutional in rejecting citizenship based purely on birth on US soil. Being president is not a right as the politically biased people claim, it is a privilege and right & privilege have never held the same meaning in any society.

[patlin]

correction as phone call interrupted my thought process:

citing propaganda from an OBOT website will not merit you any credibility as it has been proven to be taken out of context (i.e. the quote you give) as nowhere IN ANY SCOTUS decision is a child born to aliens called “natural born”. This UNPUBLISHED essay states that WKA was deemed a natural born citizen. In fact the opposite IS true, WKA was deemed “as much a citizen” (in the sense of rights) as the “natural born”. WKA claimed to be natural born, but the court refused to uphold that by stating fictitiously that according to statute, WKA was a citizen using English law instead of 100 years of settled US law to make the decision. The most current SCOTUS decision at the time was written by Gray himself and that decision upheld the US Govt policy of the 14th denying birth on soil alone as an avenue to citizenship & in that case Gray did cite 100 yrs of US law never touching English law. The Elk case upheld the 14th as being constitutional in rejecting citizenship based purely on birth on US soil. Being president is not a right as the politically biased people claim, it is a privilege and right & privilege have never held the same meaning in any society. But when the legitimacy of a judges appointment comes into question as did Gray's, politics breeds corruption & thus the raping of 14th Amendment citizenship since 1898.

[Danae]

Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen Rush, thats why.

It takes a person naturally being a citizen because both their parents were citizens and you were born here. Naturally you can have no other citizenship -just that one. Thats what Natural Born citizen means.

Rubio’s parents were un-naturalized citizens of another country. Rubio inherited his parents citizenship. That means he was BORN a dual citizen, not naturally born with just American Citizenship.

Any ticket with Rubio is just as unconstitutional as Barack Obama and I will stick to my principles on this.

[Danae]

Yes it does exist, the law holding PRECIDENT is Minor Vs Happersett.

[Yosemitest]

Okay, I see now. I apologize. This is the paragraph, isn't it?

" I have just recently read an unpub-
lished essay or brief on the meaning of
the phrase as it may apply to a current
prominent possible candidate for the
office of President, the same having been
written by the Honorable Pinckney G.
McElwee, of the bar of the District of
Columbia. As it is not otherwise avail-
able, and may be of interest to the Mem-
bers of this Congress and others, I would
incorporate in the Record as a part of
my remarks, that it may be easily avail-
able for consideration with other disser-
tations on the subject, to shed whatever
light it merits:"

[patlin]

exactly, obots are good at pulling whatever they can find & then make it seem as if it is a published legal decision by a court rather than the opinion of one man who Dowdy, in all honesty, probably used because he new the guy was politically bias in favor Dowdy’s views.

The ending of this unpublished essay is quite telling because Pinckney claims that both WKA & Minor v Happersett use English law to define NBC, when in fact Minor v Happersett conclusively uses natural and almost quote Vattel verbatim in saying that a NBC is one born of citizen parents, both parents must be US citizens at the time of the child's birth.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

OTOH, if one goes to the founding era & brings up the congressional archives of a Mr Pinckney, he is very clear that a natural born is of 2 US citizen parents, all others even though they may be native to the soil are naturalized citizens or native citizens at the founding as they were Brits before the revolution, thus the reason for the grandfather clause in Article II: “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

From one of my earliest articles:

Historical Fact #3: Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney (Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:

“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”

So it is quite ironic that the obots chose to use an unpublished opinion of a man who has the same surname as that of one of our founding fathers who actually signed the US Constitution.