Sigh. We suppose it was inevitable … but come on.

https://twitter.com/Kathy_Amidon/status/301545667606769665

https://twitter.com/Kathy_Amidon/status/301546106486136832

Good Lord.

  • Krazy Kent

    Ok. I’m the first one posting here, it seems.
    Do I even bother bringing up the fact that…..well, you know, that whole pesky lil Obama-Haiti-Soetoro-Barry-Barack-Hawaii-Hussein thingy?
    If this isn’t the pot calling a pot a pot, while smoking pot, I don’t know what is. The left has some big “juevos”….I think the election upped their level of cocky.

    • Michelle

      I think they’re just birthers in general. I took a peek at their Twitter pages, a few identify as “Libertarian” or “Constitutionist” One of them, KRB above, even tweeted that Romney wasn’t a natural born citizen either. Birthermania !

    • Sons Thunder

      The tweets cited in this article are not from those on the left.

      Also, I’m curious about “that whole pesky lil Obama-Haiti-Soetoro-Barry-Barack-Hawaii-Hussein thingy.” I interpret that as “that whole pesky lil Surname-?????-Stepfather’s Surname-Childhood Nickname-First Name-Birthplace-Middle Name thingy”

      1) What is ‘pesky’ about any of the words you chose to hyphenate? Was that meant to constitute an argument?

      2) Haiti? What was that doing in there?

  • Michelle

    Why is this so hard for folks to understand? Natural born citizen means at birth, it means upon your birth in the United States of America OR born to one or both parents of US citizenship outside the US (within a certain time frame since not residing in the US), the child is a US citizen at birth, a natural born citizen. It means they were not the citizen of another country and then became a citizen here, it means and only means they were a US citizen at birth. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, United States of America. According to the 14th Amendment, his birth in the United States makes him a US citizen , a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. It’s such a simple definition to grasp and yet so many fail to do so.

    • Zanshi

      Welcome to the American left; Where knowledge and wisdom are replaced with ignorance and idiocy. Unlike Obama, I’m pretty sure Rubio has the honor to not put up a cheap Adobe Illustrator forgery in order to just shut people up.

      • Agent_Zeero

        His birth vitrification will not prove he is a natural born citizen

        • Zanshi

          I read your other posts and realized you were being sarcastic. Sorry about that.

    • UNHATER

      Both parents must be U.S. citizens at time of birth. This is how the constitution states it. 7 times parents/citizens plural. They used the law of nature for this. This issue has been so twisted around the same way they come up with separation of church and state….

      • Michelle

        “Both parents must be U.S. citizens at time of birth. This is how the constitution states it.” Show me.

      • Agent_Zeero

        That specific language occurs nowhere in the Constitution

    • Agent_Zeero

      Bzzzz! Sorry. Wrong. Thanks for playing. You described ” citizen”, not natural born citizen. They are not the same

      • Zanshi

        ::To myself:: Open mouth, insert foot. 😡

        • Agent_Zeero

          Do whatever you want. There is a difference “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. The founders put that specific term in for a reason. Otherwise the would done what Hamilton wanted and used “citizen”. Read a book, once!

          • Zanshi

            I suppose you’re a Constitutional scholar? Why do you think children born to illegal aliens in this country are called “anchor babies”? They are citizens by birth, thus “natural born”. How about *you* learn English before talking down to me, you intellectual runt!

          • Zanshi

            I suppose you’re a Constitutional scholar? Why do you think children born to illegal aliens in this country are called “anchor babies”? They are citizens by birth, thus “natural born”. How about *you* learn English before talking down to me, you intellectual runt!

        • Agent_Zeero

          Do whatever you want. There is a difference “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. The founders put that specific term in for a reason. Otherwise the would done what Hamilton wanted and used “citizen”. Read a book, once!

    • ceemack

      Apparently it’s hard for you to understand.

      A “natural-born citizen” has always been understood to mean a person born to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.

      As Sen. Rubio’s parents had not been naturalized at the time of his birth, he is not a natural-born citizen.

      Neither, of course, is Barack Obama.

      • Michelle

        Not at all hard for me to understand. I understand it perfectly. He is a natural born citizen because he was a US citizen at birth. There are two citizens – natural born and naturalized. Rubio wasn’t naturalized, so that leaves…natural born. Tell me how naturalized at birth citizens go through the process of INS app, 5 year residency requirement, citizenship test, take the oath, etc. Tell me where infants do that.

    • Agent_Zeero

      Natural born citizen does NOT mean “citizen at birth”. It just doesn’t. You would do well to read some history about the Constitution and understand why the founders made that specific distinction. They were concerned that a child born of parents that were not citizen may not ultimately be loyal to the US, and might have a stronger allegiance to his parents country

      • Michelle

        I have done plenty of reading on the matter, it’s how I arrived at my conclusion that a person, any person, born in the United States is a natural born citizen. The Constitution states this, “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;” The existence of a comma after “or a Citizen of the United States,” indicates it’s not directly connected to the remainder of the sentence, “at the time of…” Further, the Constitutional Research Service concluded this, “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”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

        You are insisting there is a difference between “natural born citizen” and “citizen” when there is not one. There are only two definitions for Citizen of the United States – one being natural born and the other being naturalized. Being a naturalized citizens means a person became a citizen by completing the naturalization requirements which include 1. Being at least 18 yrs of age. 2. Having legally resided in the US for a period of five years. 3. Successfully completed a citizenship application. 4. Successfully pass a citizenship test. 5. Taken an oath of citizenship. Meeting all these requirements and being granted citizenship is what defines a person as a “naturalized citizen”. In a comment below you state that a child born in the US, but to foreign parents is a “naturalized citizen” but how can that possibly be the case when “naturalized” means going through the process I’ve just outlined? Show me one instance of a child born in the US to foreign parents having to apply for US citizenship. Show me one instance of a child born to foreign parents having to pass a citizenship test in order to be considered for citizen. Show me an instance where a child born to foreign parents in the US had to take a oath before there were considered citizens. It doesn’t happen. It’s not required. And that’s because they were US citizens at birth – therefore, natural born citizens.

        Lastly, the 14 Amendment states this, ““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 14th Amendment makes the distinction between “born or naturalized” and again, naturalized mean having gone through the legal process to be granted citizenship – application, age 18, test, oath, etc. There is not one single child born in the United States who hasn’t been considered a citizen until they completed the naturalization process.

        Further explanation that your definition that a child born in the US to foreign parents is not a natural born citizen, but rather a naturalized citizen is that a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked. No one, NO ONE born in the United States of American can have their citizenship revoked, and that would include any child born in this country regardless of the status of their parents (with the exception of diplomats in our country for the purposes of conducting diplomatic business for the country of which they are citizens).

        Naturalized citizen means, and only means, a person born in another country who came to the US and completed the process to become a citizen of the US. Any citizen other than that and born in the US (or outside the US to US parents) is indeed a natural born citizen – having citizenship at birth.

        Your assertion it was the Founders’ concern that a child born in the US, but to the parents who were not citizens, might not ultimately be loyal to the US is totally absurd considering quite a number of a first few Presidents were in fact the children of foreign born parents and I so seriously doubt their loyalty and allegiance to the US was EVER in question.

      • Michelle

        I have done plenty of reading on the matter, it’s how I arrived at my conclusion that a person, any person, born in the United States is a natural born citizen. The Constitution states this, “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;” The existence of a comma after “or a Citizen of the United States,” indicates it’s not directly connected to the remainder of the sentence, “at the time of…” Further, the Constitutional Research Service concluded this, “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”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

        You are insisting there is a difference between “natural born citizen” and “citizen” when there is not one. There are only two definitions for Citizen of the United States – one being natural born and the other being naturalized. Being a naturalized citizens means a person became a citizen by completing the naturalization requirements which include 1. Being at least 18 yrs of age. 2. Having legally resided in the US for a period of five years. 3. Successfully completed a citizenship application. 4. Successfully pass a citizenship test. 5. Taken an oath of citizenship. Meeting all these requirements and being granted citizenship is what defines a person as a “naturalized citizen”. In a comment below you state that a child born in the US, but to foreign parents is a “naturalized citizen” but how can that possibly be the case when “naturalized” means going through the process I’ve just outlined? Show me one instance of a child born in the US to foreign parents having to apply for US citizenship. Show me one instance of a child born to foreign parents having to pass a citizenship test in order to be considered for citizen. Show me an instance where a child born to foreign parents in the US had to take a oath before there were considered citizens. It doesn’t happen. It’s not required. And that’s because they were US citizens at birth – therefore, natural born citizens.

        Lastly, the 14 Amendment states this, ““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 14th Amendment makes the distinction between “born or naturalized” and again, naturalized mean having gone through the legal process to be granted citizenship – application, age 18, test, oath, etc. There is not one single child born in the United States who hasn’t been considered a citizen until they completed the naturalization process.

        Further explanation that your definition that a child born in the US to foreign parents is not a natural born citizen, but rather a naturalized citizen is that a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked. No one, NO ONE born in the United States of American can have their citizenship revoked, and that would include any child born in this country regardless of the status of their parents (with the exception of diplomats in our country for the purposes of conducting diplomatic business for the country of which they are citizens).

        Naturalized citizen means, and only means, a person born in another country who came to the US and completed the process to become a citizen of the US. Any citizen other than that and born in the US (or outside the US to US parents) is indeed a natural born citizen – having citizenship at birth.

        Your assertion it was the Founders’ concern that a child born in the US, but to the parents who were not citizens, might not ultimately be loyal to the US is totally absurd considering quite a number of a first few Presidents were in fact the children of foreign born parents and I so seriously doubt their loyalty and allegiance to the US was EVER in question.

    • Agent_Zeero

      Natural born citizen does NOT mean “citizen at birth”. It just doesn’t. You would do well to read some history about the Constitution and understand why the founders made that specific distinction. They were concerned that a child born of parents that were not citizen may not ultimately be loyal to the US, and might have a stronger allegiance to his parents country

  • kateorjane

    Hope no Obama supporters are whining that Rubio isn’t the right kind of citizen. If BO was considered a NBC given his murky issues, no one should give Rubio’s birth a second thought.

    • Armando

      It’s just right wing wackos that are attacking the “savior” in this issue

    • Armando

      It’s just right wing wackos that are attacking the “savior” in this issue

  • http://twitter.com/LNSmithee L.N. Smithee

    I’m getting so frustrated with the increasing shallowness of the electorate on both the left AND the right.

    It seems like after the worst public speaker in White House history, people were so floored by the slick, smooth huckster Obama that they equated elocution skills with intelligence and/or wisdom. We know that it takes a crash of mammoth proportion (like the first debate vs. Romney) to get the MSM to admit BHO’s not perfect. Now, if the person giving the SOTU response isn’t just as fluid (Jindal, McDonnell, Bachmann, et al), s/he’s a failure!

    What’s worse is that we can’t even count on the right-leaners to focus on the content rather than the presentation! I just finished watching FNC’s The Five and they all agreed Rubio “wasn’t ready” because his mouth got dry. BIG. EFFING. DEAL! Maybe if nobody in this country can concentrate on what’s important when they see a freaking squirrel out of the corner of their eyes, we deserve to go down the tubes.

    http://youtu.be/SSUXXzN26zg

  • aPLWBinAK

    The same people who give a pass to a Communist with a Kenyan father on the B.C. issue, suddenly become obsessed with citizenship whenever Rubio talks about the American dream, and how to live it.

  • michael s

    Rubio didn’t care when this birtherism started and flourished with Pres Obama. Rubio didn’t care when fellow conservative Governor Jindal was subjected to birtherism. Now he’s wants support. NO SYMPATHY HERE. I’m sure all of you sycophants never expected the flurry of attacks on your Savior. Another reason why I love karma.

    • rinodino

      Agree ….this is big time karma. Righties created this birther monster , now deal with it, own it, savor it

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        Actually, the Clinton campaign created this one and used it against both McCain and Obama. Then again, never let those pesky facts trouble you when invective and lies cause you no cognitive dissonance. Much like the Obama birth certificate debacle, this too shall pass. If there is a “monster”, it exists only in your head.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        Actually, the Clinton campaign created this one and used it against both McCain and Obama. Then again, never let those pesky facts trouble you when invective and lies cause you no cognitive dissonance. Much like the Obama birth certificate debacle, this too shall pass. If there is a “monster”, it exists only in your head.

      • http://www.facebook.com/corey.dennison Corey Dennison

        Uh…no. Hilary’s campaign did. Own it, idiot.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

      This has been going on for a while with Rubio and his detractors. He quickly provided proof of his US Birth Certificate when asked. Since this angle fell flat, the Rubio birthers are now trying to move forward, using the 14th amendment as a justification. I don’t understand the animus, Michael. Who here has called Rubio a savior? What “karma” are you referencing?

      • Agent_Zeero

        Great. That means he’s a citizen. But, based on the common law definition of NBC that the founders likely were using, he is not. There a reason the specific term” natural born citizen” is in that clause, and not citizen. They have different meanings

        • mike_in_kosovo

          Incorrect.

          ” Who are natural born citizens but those born within the
          Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are
          citizens by birth—natural born citizens.” – John Bingham, House of Representatives, 1862.

          There’s plenty of other examples.

        • mike_in_kosovo

          Incorrect.

          ” Who are natural born citizens but those born within the
          Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are
          citizens by birth—natural born citizens.” – John Bingham, House of Representatives, 1862.

          There’s plenty of other examples.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

      This has been going on for a while with Rubio and his detractors. He quickly provided proof of his US Birth Certificate when asked. Since this angle fell flat, the Rubio birthers are now trying to move forward, using the 14th amendment as a justification. I don’t understand the animus, Michael. Who here has called Rubio a savior? What “karma” are you referencing?

    • Agent_Zeero

      Other than apoplectic lefties, who is saying Rubio is the GOP’s savior?

    • GaryTheBrave

      “Karma” is this year’s Race Card. Both are being overplayed.

    • http://twitter.com/LNSmithee L.N. Smithee

      “I’m sure all you sycophants never expected the flurry of attacks on your Savior.”

      I’m neither a sycophant nor view Rubio as a savior, but I am a conservative. Every conservative expected a flurry of attacks on Rubio, and we know it’s just beginning. Palin, Jindal, West, and Rubio were and are all attacked for the same reasons: 1) Democrats want women and minorities to think that believe that Republicans hate them for being female and/or minority, and 2) They want white men to think they’re dumb even if they aren’t.

  • justlittlolme

    Why does everyone try to make this simple concept so #%&$%# difficult!

    You acquire Natural born citizenship just like you do your facial features or hair color…..
    You inherit it from your parents!

    If the parents are citizens [natural born OR naturalized] at the time of birth, the child is a natural born citizen..and it makes no difference where that birth occurs.

    A child born in the US of alien parents is naturalized at birth via the 14th Amendment….which is of questionable Constitutionality, IMHO.

  • Maxx

    Progs…..they’re only hypocrites if fingers are typing or lips are moving.

  • Sons Thunder

    Twitchy Article Title: “Here we go again: Rubio birthers resurface after State of the Union response”

    Evidence For Article’s Premise: Some tweets from right-wingers

    Typical Twitchy Reader Response: Lefties are hypocrites. This sentiment ignores that (a) these tweets are from right-wingers and (b) Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth while neither of Rubio’s parents were

    Absent From Any Twitchy Reader Response: Discussion of legal precedent (e.g. Lynch v. Clarke or the 2011 report from The Congressional Research Service on this very subject

    Rubio ‘Birthers’: Found in abundance among Twitchy commenters

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

    guess we can be called racist too.
    whatever.
    sliding standards and a “living document” led to all this crap.

  • John (it true me am)

    I was engaged in this arguement here just the other day. It’s absurdity. People who think that being a natural born citizen requires 2 citizen parents all use what is LEFT OUT of the constitution as evidence of their position. Letters between founders that didn’t make the cut, court decisions that are overturned or invalidated(you know, like SLAVERY was), and just generally hinge their point of view on the lack of explicit statement to the contrary.

  • John (it true me am)

    I was engaged in this arguement here just the other day. It’s absurdity. People who think that being a natural born citizen requires 2 citizen parents all use what is LEFT OUT of the constitution as evidence of their position. Letters between founders that didn’t make the cut, court decisions that are overturned or invalidated(you know, like SLAVERY was), and just generally hinge their point of view on the lack of explicit statement to the contrary.