Well, what a sad day. I got “DQ’ed” at Karl Denninger’s Market Ticker Forum for laying a little truth on them. This is sad because that is one of the four or five websites I make it a point to visit daily. Anyway, Karl Denninger, who I respect very much for his common sense financial analysis, got to hanging around with liars and charlatans like Special Deputy Jerome “Jerry” Corsi, and ended up drinking the idiotic Birther two citizen parents kool-aid.
Here are a few excerpts from the Market Ticker Internet Article:
Here are the facts:
Deconstructing Marco Rubio: INELIGIBLE
Rubio was born to two parents who were not citizens at the time of his birth. They were here in the country and he was born here, but his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.
At a later date his parents became citizens of the United States.
Marco Rubio is ineligible to be President of the United States under the natural born citizen requirement. He is a citizen but will never be a natural born citizen as he was not at birth due to the Cuban citizenship of his parents and you cannot retroactively acquire natural born citizenship status.
He therefore must not be nominated as VP, since the primary qualification for that office is the ability to stand as President if something happens to the President while he is in office.
I know there are people who think the Constitution shouldn’t read this way on natural born citizenship as a requirement for this office, but it does read this way AND IS WHAT IT IS.
Here is a link to the complete article:
Sooo, to correct this blatant nonsense, I made the following comment, which is on page 3 of the comments:
The “two-citizen parent” requirement is Imaginary Law. The issue was decided in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case. This case was cited extensively in a 2009 Indiana case, Ankeny v. Governor, to wit:
The Birthers argued:
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
To which the Indiana court said:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States  natural-born citizens.”15
That is The REAL Law, as opposed to the Birther’s IMAGINARY Law. As far as Mino[r] v. Happersett being “precedent” as to defining natural born citizenship, the very idea is laughable to anyone who can read and comprehend simple sentences written in English. Court after court rejects the notion, and if you want one recent example, then simply refer to the recent Tisdale case from Virginia:
The Federal Judge slapped the suit down holding:
The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”); Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ … have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding … and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.
That is one of at least 4 or 5 cases this year alone which chunked the two citizen parent nonsense out the door.
Which, got me DQ’ed, whatever that is, which means I can’t post there anymore. I find this disturbing. Not only has Denninger drunk deeply and long from the Well of Two Citizen Parents Stupidity, but he has apparently picked up another nasty little Birther habit . . . banning people who tell him he is wrong. This is probably a smart, though not courageous, move on his part, because when the law isn’t on your side, then it is a little inconvenient to have somebody citing it to you. Which ought to tell him something.
And BTW (which means by the way) should Karl Denninger or any other Birther wish to make comments here, I don’t DQ or ban people who disagree with me. Which also ought to tell him something. Like I ain’t scairt to defend my position.
Another disturbing thing is how he is ruining his credibility on financial matters with this Birther fling. He is one of the few people who has a really good grasp on the macro-economic situation and should he become more well known, there are people who are going to look at his Birtherism and dismiss him like he was a Moon Landing Denier. Not only does he have an Achille’s Heel, he has managed to insert it into his own mouth.
I will discuss his article in more depth at a later date. Meanwhile, I guess nobody is perfect, and this is probably God’s way of instilling a little humility in Denninger who I believe will one day pull his head out of his rear end on this. I sense at heart that he is a very honest person, and when he finally figures out how he has been completely hoodwinked on this stuff, first will come sad, and then will come mad. . .
And then I wouldn’t want to be Jerry Corsi taking scuba lessons from him.