Last month, we made note of the fact that a schism had erupted in the wild world of Birtherism, with a breakaway faction turning their lunacy on Florida senator and frequent-object-of-presidential-speculation Marco Rubio (R) and the WorldNetDaily set objecting to Rubio's victimization. Well, over at Naked DC, Liz Mair points to this article in today's St. Petersburg Times that reports that not only does Rubio remain a target of birther babble, but they've expanded their reach:
“It’s nothing to do with him personally. But you can’t change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules,” said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo.
Forget about allegedly Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The rub is that “natural born citizen” was never defined.
The birthers rely on writings at the time of the formation of the republic and references in court cases since then to contend that “natural born” means a person born to U.S. citizens. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, his office said, but his parents did not become citizens until 1975.
"The birthers say Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, whose parents are from India and were not citizens at the time of his birth, is also unqualified," according to this report.
So, the bipartisan aspect of birtherism continues to develop, though it's hard to award points for consistency when the only consistent thing is dementia.
How will Donald Trump’s first 100 days impact YOU? Subscribe, choose the community that you most identify with or want to learn more about and we’ll send you the news that matters most once a week throughout Trump’s first 100 days in office. Learn more