Stupid Question: Chicago Tribune's Phil Kadner;
Does America Need A Natural-Born President?
Chicago Tribune's Phil Kadner gets so much wrong I don't know where to begin. And I love how the press speak for all birthers even though they never provide any of the real arguments presented by our side. Pure propaganda!
Excerpt via Chicago Tribune:
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on how the words "natural-born citizen" would apply to someone who is president of the United States.
As everyone knows, President Barack Obama has been accused of failing to meet the natural-born test, whatever the test is. The main focus initially was on whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii or a foreign country.
Critics initially ignored the fact that his mother, Ann Durham, was born in Wichita, Kan. Some so-called birthers, responding to the "mother is all you need for citizenship" claims, eventually suggested that she wasn't Obama's mother at all.
I'm not going to rehash all those arguments here. You can find most of them on the Internet where there are plenty of folks still claiming that Obama lacks the constitutional qualification to be president.
My guess is that many ordinary citizens who questioned Obama's citizenship were unaware that having an American-born mother was considered all the qualification needed to meet the test, but Republicans supporting Cruz have been quick to cite all the case law in support of that argument. [...] Chicago Tribune.
You can send the real birther arguments to the Chicago Tribune writer at, email@example.com
Here's just one perfect example why the Article II "natural born Citizen" requirement matters...