Romney adviser: Obama's birthplace not an issue in the race

Politico ^ | 5-25-12 | Maggie Habberman

[Brellium]

Correct.

There is limited upside on targeting Obama’s birthplace, Obama may or may not be forced to withdraw, and it would not impact his most ardent believers.

Then in the event everything is fine, Romney is painted as being a part of the fringe right wing and a kook.

My honest opinion, it’s a non-issue, we have 535 people in congress all of which have their own political ambitions. It has been said that 100 of those, senators, all believe they have the qualifications to be President.

So there are three options,

1.) Obama may not eligible to hold the presidency, and 535 people have not found a political gain from that information .

2.) Obama may not eligible to hold the presidency, and those out of the 535 whom have brought up the issue have been bought off.

3.) Obama is eligible.

Pick one.

[sanjuanbob]

Aside form the legal issue, it’s a very polarizing and divisive issue between the left and right. Romney is simply trying to sway democrat voters onto his side. They’re in play due to losing their houses, being out of work and suffering like the rest of us. To focus on birther issues will infuriate those voters who would otherwise be thinking of coming over to Romney. It’s a reasonable tactic.

[Phosgood]

Romney just needs to keep his mouth shut on this issue or just say “I Don’t Know!” He is not good on his feet and his handlers do not have the ability to put a sock in his mouth.

Reminds me of our former Macca SEN candidate from VA.,

[Spaulding]

"BO’s father was a foreign national. This disqualifies BO as POTUS, even if BO had been born on U.S. soil. A natural born citizen has two citizen parents."

Yes, and isn't it encouraging to see that more and more people understand the constitutional issue. As another contributor pointed out, the enormous effort to promote the Alinsky tactic, ‘birthers’, probably has had impact. Obama is so frightening, as people see the world's economy collapsing, and see that Obama's banker sponsors see it as an opportunity, Romney doesn't need to join the eligibility issue. Romney was the establishment candidate, and the Republican establishment, every US Senator, signed SR 511, clearly agreeing that a natural born citizen must have two citiizen parents. Many of them supported the Obama/McCaskill bill in Feb 2008, the the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. This bill was not accident. It was the next to last attempt to claim that McCain was eligible. It failed. SR 511 was, of course, a ‘resolution’ - not actionable.

Remember, Barack has never once claimed to be a natural born citizen. Nancy Pelosi has, by inference, made one such claim in writing, and even that was intentionally fudged by having her sign two affirmations of candidate eligiblity, one mentioned the Constitution, the other didn't. This was for Hawaii. Barack, in fact, told us, on his web site, that he was a 'native-born citizen of the U.S.', which is the confusing language for a naturalized, a 14th Amendment citizen. He didn't lie. He has always asserted that the Constitution is a dated document which doesn't let him do what he believes our citizens need. What he claimed, and every one avoids, implies that any 'anchor baby', the child born to Jihadi terrorists in a cave in Arizona as they await their orders, raised by them under the cover used by millions of illegal aliens, would become eligible to the presidency at 35. That is nonsense, and not so different from the child of secret royalists who never naturalized.

Romney's principal sponsors supportet the inelibile McCain.

Without McCain, some senator would have joined Nathan Deal to ask for vetting of Obama. McCain was vetted, and never found eligible. 511 simply said “We think McCain deserves to have the chance to run, even if he isn't constitutionally eligible.

If Obama was born to a citizen, he attained the office, accepted campaign finances, took the oath of office knowing he was lying. Betting that no politician would bring him up on charges, given the example of Scooter Libby's prosecution, when Justice knew before the charges were even announced. that Richard Armitqge had confessed. But understanding the Constitution remains important. Republican might prefer not to face Hillary, who would be Obama’s likely replacement. But there is no doubt that Hillary was well aware of the Constitutional truth.

Keep up the clear explanations. Others are becoming aware of the truth. The more anyone reads the concise and correct legal explanations on FR, the more they will realize how many FR contributors are antagonists - Obots - and clever ones, because their objective has been to redirect discussion, and avoid constitutional analysis, because there is now so much correct information available, thanks largely to Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio.

[Popman]

-——Romney dealt a blow to the Birther movement.-——

Good for Myth....The birther movement is a losing issue....in this election

I certainly understand all the ramifactions of the issue and to a certain degree think important for future elections...

Bottomline is Obama is ALREADY POTUS and was voted in by a large majority of voters....the SCOTUS isn’t going to touch it with a 10 ft pole since they are loath to get involved in an issue settled by the American people...

Myth needs to distance himself from the issue so not to let the MSM paint him as fringe...

[Cicero]

I agree that Romney should refrain from attacking Obama on the birther issue. Let others do it for him.

But that does NOT mean that it’s his job to DEFEND Obama, or to say that it has no relevance to the campaign. Nonsense. Of course it has relevance that the man in the White House is probably an illegal alien who has twice forged his COLB and constantly lies about his origins and most of the happenings in his life.

If, as seems extremely probable, Obama is not qualified to be President, then that is certainly relevant to the campaign.

The Republican candidate should say that it’s not his job to say where Obama was born. Let Obama address the issue if there are any questions. And leave it at that.

But as many Freepers have observed, Romney only attacks his opponents when they are conservatives. Then as soon as a Democrat appears on the scene, he starts making nice. Much like McCain, only far worse.

[okie01]

Pick one.

I'm sure you're not interested in elevating this to a debate. And neither am I.

But I've always believed that there was only one "birther" argument that was worth pursuing. Was Obama born in the USA....or was he not? The outcome of any such investigation -- delivering proof, one way or another -- could be considered dispository.

The natural-born citizen argument has always struck me as a red herring. Everybody who gave a damn about who was going to be elected in 2008 already knew that Obama's daddy had been born in Kenya. Obama himself had written of it. If that singular event made him ineligible for the office of the President, why didn't even one of the thousands of politicians and lawyers and scholars whose business it is to know the Constitution and Electoral Law come forward with that proposition?

To my knowledge, none did...until we were several years into Obama's term. And, even then, we are left with an argument that can only be decided by a court -- whose verdict will never be announced so long as Obama is an elected President.

What an utter waste of effort...

[thecodont]

It’s not the birthplace of BO’s dad that disqualified BO from being POTUS. It was the citizenship of BO’s dad at BO’s birth that did it. He was a foreign national, not a naturalized citizen of the United States of America.

[mcshot]

I don’t understand how this point keeps getting lost and I’m glad you posted it - again.

[okie01]

It’s not the birthplace of BO’s dad that disqualified BO from being POTUS. It was the citizenship of BO’s dad at BO’s birth that did it. He was a foreign national, not a naturalized citizen of the United States of America.

I understand your argument perfectly. However, it reflects nothing more than an opinion on a legal matter which is yet to be resolved.

You're free to cite cases. But it remains your opinion. As such, it has no legal weight. And it will never be adjudicated during Obama's current term.

Therefore, it is irrelevant in a practical sense.

I'm sorry. But that's the truth.

[New Jersey Realist]

A natural born citizen has two citizen parents.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I’d like to see where that is stated (other than a birther website).

What is stated (1 of among 200 such sources) is this:

“[Supreme Court] precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“, - SO SAID: the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County in March 2012.

Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

Even James Madison disavows the parent rule when he said:

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

[New Jersey Realist]

reflects nothing more than an opinion on a legal matter which is yet to be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ah, but it has been resolved. See my previous post (#51)

[Fantasywriter]

If it's a matter of allegiance, then Obama doesn't qualify. He has more allegiance to his foreign half than to the USA. This is the problem w arguing that the Framers were fine w the children of foreigners who happened to be born on US soil: divided loyalties. The idea that they actually endorsed divided loyalties for the office of POTUS, or even undivided foreign loyalties [as in a person born of two foreign parents on US soil] is ridiculous.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Romney is going to have to beat Obama at the polls -- not in the courts.

Well, that's one way to do it. Obama has a history of destroying his opponent during an election and winning by being the only remaining candidate.

Wouldn't that be rich.

[New Jersey Realist]

How can you say that? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

On July 4th, 1776 everyone became a citizen of the U.S. - a natural born subject to a natural born citizen.

According to the Constitution everyone already a citizen (even if a naturalized one) on the day before ratification was eligible for the office – once he met the 14 year residence requirement.

There were a LOT of people that didn’t approve of the separation or the war against England, Loyalist and such – much more than today.

So why in Pete’s sake do you thing there is a restriction on future generations and not then?

A Russian, English or German citizen naturalized the day before the Constitution was ratified would have been eligible to become president.

Use your brain. Don’t listen to these kooks!

Obama must go, absolutely, but IF HE WAS born in Hawaii, he IS NBC. Get rid of him by voting the bum out or prove he was indeed born in Kenya!

[New Jersey Realist]

Also I might add, Madison made this statement after the Constituion was written:

“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

[New Jersey Realist]

You are so wrong. Read the posts I have made on this thread.

[New Jersey Realist]

As a Navy retiree myself, I beg you: please don’t fall for the crap that these idiot birthers promulgate. Discover the truth. Check out the posts I have made here. Birthers try to pervert the Contitution we swore to defend. I have more info if you need it.

[New Jersey Realist]

Well what did anyone expect? Romney knows that birthers won’t vote for him so why should he defend them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I’m NOT a birther but I won’t vote for romney; but not for the reasons those birther kooks propagate!

[New Jersey Realist]

U-2012>But the American People do see it as an issue !
No. They don’t. If they did we wouldn’t see this argument four years after 2008.

????????????????

Exactly right. Curious isn’t it that this birther issue wasn’t brought up WAY before the election? I don’t like the fact that this bastard won, but fight a fair fight!