>> Wednesday, May 30, 2012

I am shocked and appalled by the unmitigated gall of this pretender. Article II, section 1 of the United States Constitution is clear about the qualifications for President:

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Many have argued the natural-born citizen requires a candidate for President to be the child of two American citizens and born on United States soil. Tragic, then, that one of the two major political parties appears to be on the verge of nominating a candidate who fails this basic requirement.

Willard Mitt Romney's father, George Wilcken Romney, was a Mexican!

It's true! George Romney was born in Galeana, in the state of Chihuahua, on July 8th, 1907. Therefore, George Romney was a Mexican citizen, and his son, Mitt Romney, is not the child of two American citizens and therefore is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. It seems incredible to me that nobody is calling attention to this fact, and I have to ask: what are the Republicans trying to pull, here? You know, it seems like they often are the ones talking about people coming from Mexico to steal American jobs, too? Well, I guess they're right: apparently a Mexican fellow came up here and stole the Governorship of Michigan from a natural-born American in 1963, and, failing to be content with that coup, decided to steal the job of Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development during the Nixon Administration. And now his son is trying to steal the Presidency!


This was called to my attention by the Romney campaign's release of a document related to Mitt Romney's alleged American birth. I put it to you that way, because if you go to what has been provided (PDF link), you'll see that it is not, in fact, a birth certificate, but a crude forgery of a purported "Certificate Of Live Birth" from Señor Romney's adopted state of Michigan, where the itinerant politician chose to have his "anchor baby".

We know it's a forgery for several reasons. First, if you examine the edges of the document, you'll notice the left and bottom edges have not been reproduced at all, having been crudely clipped when the forgers grew exasperated, obviously, with having to fake the intricate scrollwork of the margin. Secondly, if my eyes haven't deceived me, the font of the so-called document appears to be Arial, a computer font created in 1982 for IBM printers and subsequently adopted throughout the computer industry as a Helvetica substitute. Mitt Romney was allegedly born in 1947, 35 years(!!) before Arial was even created. (It's impossible not to note the amazing coincidence of that number, and to wonder if that was a deliberate "Easter Egg" left in the faked document by its creators as a kind of sick joke.)

What is unmistakably odd about the forged document would be two particular points. First, it seems weird that the forgers didn't try to gloss the fact that George Romney was a foreigner, listing Mexico as his place of birth when they easily could have added the word "New" and Americanized him that way. Admittedly, Mitt Romney has acknowledged his father's un-American birth in speeches, but (by the same token) Mitt Romney has also shifted positions on issues like abortion, state-provided healthcare and government bailouts of American industries; surely it would have been simple enough for Mitt Romney's position on his father's birthplace to "evolve", shaking the proverbial Etch A Sketch™ to shuffle the location a few hundred miles north with a couple of quick, upside-down shakes and possibly tapping the side a couple of times. Second, there's the obvious "flub" of the font; a possibility that suggests itself as a solution is that the document is, in fact, mostly authentic but was produced after 1982, making Mitt Romney less than thirty years old, and therefore too young to be President; this distressing possibility raises the spectre that much of Romney's biography is faked, and that all the claims of his purported missionary work in the early 1970s, prep school bullying in the 1960s, etc., are utter fabrications, designed to throw us off the scent of Mitt Romney's actual agenda, an agenda so mysterious and incomprehensible it surely must be terrifying.

Let's suppose, however, that the basic information on the faked "Certificate Of Live Birth" is largely accurate. We go back to the first question raised in the previous paragraph: why didn't the forgers hide the location of George Romney's foreign birth? I think this is probably the Rosetta Stone that leads us through the looking glass that gives us access to the rabbit hole leading out of The Matrix, sinking the battleship and advancing Uncle Wiggily three whole hops out of Candyland. The only reason for the Romney group to not eliminate evidence of George Romney's foreign intruder-ness is that Mitt Romney is proud of his Mexican heritage. This is a topic that needs to be analyzed at some great length: how did George Romney's Mexican values shape Mitt Romney, how was Mitt Romney defined by a radical Mexican agenda? One suspects there's more to it than an affection for margaritas and a lifelong passion for fútbol.

Students of Mexican history will recall that that from 1929 to 2000, a period of seventy-one years, Mexican politics were dominated by Partido Revolucionario Institucional, better known as PRI. PRI is and was a revolutionary socialist party, and while Mexico has ostensibly been a democracy since the Mexican revolution, during most of the seven decades of PRI's deathgrip on Mexican politics, PRI secured voting majorities suggestive of embedded, institutional corruption and fraud, marking PRI as a quasi-totalitarian regime (albeit one with arguably benevolent inclinations).

The Romney family allegedly fled Mexico during the early days of the Mexican Revolution, the same period of turmoil from which PRI's predecessor, the Partido Nacional Revolucionario emerged, founded by the radical leftist Plutarco Elías Calles. Suppose that these events are not coincidental, that there are threads linking the players and dates: the left-sympathizing, Mormon Romney family meets with future President Of Mexico Calles and they come up with a plan, a patient long game to be played out over decades. Calles will become President of Mexico, George Romney's father, Gaskell Romney (who we know accepted payments from Mexico in the guise of "reparations" from the leftist Cárdenas regime) will head north to infiltrate the United States. (Recall that Mexican pride and patriotism have never fully recovered from the secession of Texas to the United States, followed by the loss of most of the Mexican north--what we now consider California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and portions of Arizona and Colorado--to the United States during the Mexican-American War.) The Romneys' role will be to establish themselves as a "respectable", "American" business family while secretly working their fingers into the inner workings of American politics and commerce to bring the system down from within. George Romney, born and raised to usurp the role of American President, fails in his 1968 bid for the Presidency, forcing the PRI-Romney cartel to fall back on their plan B: Mitt Romney, a proud "patriot" who's really as American as a chimichanga.1

This, then, shows us what we can expect from the usurper if he is elected in November: Mitt Romney will immediately shed his "conservative" guise and proceed to completely socialize the healthcare system (Massachusetts being a test-run) and many significant areas of the private sector (PRI nationalized the Mexican oil industry in the 1930s; expect Mitt Romney, agent of PRI, to do the same). He will not only rescind all restrictions on illegal immigration, but Arizona and other states will find their "alien" problem solved as soon as Romney ceremoniously returns the territories "stolen" in 1848 to Mexico. Texas will also be returned to Mexico, and American-descended Texans will be forced to pay reparations to the Mexican government (with interest). Spanish will become the official language of the United States, and soccer--which we will confusingly have to refer to as "fútbol" will become the national sport.

Is this the future we want for the United States?

I insist that Sheriff Joe Arpaio, if he avoids indictment and/or impeachment, should form a task force immediately to investigate the mysterious circumstances of Mitt Romney's birth and Romney's questionable associations and allegiances with foreign powers. We know he isn't a citizen, but what we need now is the proof to justify the casus belli for war with Mexico--because infiltrating this country with three generations of spies and provocateurs is surely an act of war, don't you think, entitling us to defend ourselves at least as much as we needed to defend ourselves from Iraq. (Bonus: Mexico is closer and we already have lots of Texans who are well-armed and ready to invade as soon as the order to drunkenly drive their SUVs across the border comes down; an instant strike force and one in tune with the Founders' preference for state militias over standing armies, so it's extra-specially-Constitutional.) I am given to understand that Sheriff Arpaio has been investigating President Obama's qualifications to be President, a mission that has little bearing on his portfolio of duties (though it does provide a rationale for a Hawaiian vacation, expenses paid); the matter I'm demanding he look into ought to be a far more immediate concern to him if he doesn't want to be speaking Mexican on January 22nd.

The public has a right to know! ¿Hablas a español, Sr. Romney?

(A tip'o'th' old hat to Mark at News Corpse for pointing out some of the problems with the alleged "Romney document".)

1Wheels within wheels: the spell-checker in my browser doesn't like the word "chimichanga", so what does it suggest instead? "Michiganite" and "Michigan"--coincidence?! Or is the Mozilla Foundation a part of the grand web of lies and deceit?!


Phiala Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 6:56:00 PM EDT  

And I just read* that there's a campaign on to get Mitt to prove that he's not a unicorn.

Because he might be, and unicorns can't be President.

* In a legit news source, no less.

Eric Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 9:10:00 PM EDT  

Good Lord, a Mexican unicorn! What are we coming to?

timb111 Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 10:01:00 PM EDT  

Surely this constitutional article won't be applied against The Canada Party?

Megan Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 10:09:00 PM EDT  

I want that article thrown out just for its terrible grammar.

Nick from the O.C.,  Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 2:11:00 PM EDT  

I'm concerned about this issue.

"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..."

If you weren't a citizen in 1783, then too bad. No Prez for you!
What does the part in the italics mean? It has to mean something, right? We can't ignore it under the normal rules of statutory construction.

It must mean that only persons who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted can serve as President.

That's how I parse it, anyway.

Nick from the O.C.,  Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 2:12:00 PM EDT  

Damn preview/edit/publish function.

Mama Karen Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 4:17:00 PM EDT  

LOL Ok I'm a little freaked out by Nick from the O.C.'s point! WTH does that phrase mean? So maybe all our presidents weren't really eligible to be president (with the exception of the first few, I guess).

Eric Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 4:30:00 PM EDT  


Nick has something, Mama Karen--we have to find either a Dracula or a Highlander if we want a Constitutional President, but only if the Dracula or Highlander was already an American citizen at ratification.

I assume the GOP will recruit the Dracula, because they seem to have a thing for bloodsuckers with personal space issues. But where will the Democrats find a Highlander, when they have such a real talent for chopping their own heads off?

Regardless, the debates just got more interesting....

Megan Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 8:17:00 PM EDT  

Nick is right: that's the grammar problem I was pointing out. The way that sentence is written, none of the candidates are eligible.

Nick from the O.C.,  Friday, June 1, 2012 at 6:30:00 PM EDT  

Look there's one attorney around here and it fer shure ain't me. We need to look to Eric to explain us the proper rules of statutory construction.

But I thought I understood that every word, every term, has to be accorded meaning--and that the interpretation that accorded meaning to the entire sentence/paragraph was preferred to one the accorded meaning to only a point and rendered the rest a nullity.

That's not new law, right? That's ancient English commonlaw. Or so I think.

Let's assume our Founding Fathers knew these rules because they were schooled in the intricacies of English commonlaw and jurisprudence.

Ergo, the sentence has to be interpreted in a manner that accords meaning to all parts and does not render any one part a nullity.

Folks, it must mean what it says.

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting! Because of the evils of spam, comments on posts that are more than ten days old will go into a moderation queue, but I do check the queue and your comment will (most likely) be posted if it isn't spam.

Another proud member of the UCF...

Another proud member of the UCF...
UCF logo ©2008 Michelle Klishis international gang of... international gang of...
смерть шпионам!

...Frank Gorshin-obsessed bikers.

...Frank Gorshin-obsessed bikers.
GorshOn! ©2009 Jeff Hentosz

  © Blogger template Werd by 2009

Back to TOP