Bulletin: Romney is eligible to be president

How do these things get started?

No wonder people are so confused about the issues of the day.

I am literally deluged with emails from Americans insisting that Mitt Romney is not constitutionally eligible to be president.

It's not true.

I say this not because I like Mitt Romney. I don't. In fact,I have famously written, in a column titled, "The real most dangerous man in America," that I would not vote for Mitt Romney if he were running against Satan himself! I still feel that way today. He's a dangerous phony and pimp for the political establishment in America that doesn't really believe in constitutionally limited government. I believe a Romney presidency will only solidify and institutionalize the radical prescriptions of Barack Obama's administration. He won't repeal any of it.

TRENDING: 9 teens arrested for 'horrific' beatdown of U.S. Marines

Are we clear enough on that?

Furthermore, while I remain a strong advocate of the position that Obama is not eligible for a variety of reasons, I have never made this assertion based on the fact that I detest everything for which he stands. That assertion is based on fact, on reality, on verifiable truth.

I would love to tell you Romney's not constitutionally eligible to be president. I have no motivation whatsoever for hiding or burying such a claim if it had any validity. But it's just not so.

The rumor mill, however, claims that because Romney's father was born in Mexico, his son is not eligible.

That's just hogwash.

The Constitution doesn't require the parents of a presidential candidate to have been born in America. It simply requires that candidates be "natural born citizens" themselves. The scholarly interpretation of that requirement is that the parents of the candidate must have been citizens of the U.S. before the birth of the offspring.

This is the case with Mitt Romney's birth. End of story.

If it were not true, this journalist would tell you so.

I have made the case that Marco Rubio, a U.S. senator and vice-presidential possibility whom I genuinely respect and admire, is not eligible for the job. The reason? His parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born. That's the criteria. He doesn't meet it.

I like Rubio – a lot.

I don't like Romney – at all.

But Romney meets the constitutional test. Rubio does not.

So can you please stop writing to me and to my team at WND with suggestions that Mitt Romney fails the constitutional eligibility test? It's not true.

I don't think he gets a passing grade on understanding and interpreting the Constitution, but – unfortunately, from my perspective – he passes the litmus test for serving as president.

Can we move on to more substantive issues in this campaign?

Can we look at Romney's pathetic record as governor of Massachusetts?

Can we examine his "evolving" positions on the issues?

Can we decide, before it is too late, that he is perhaps the worst possible choice for the Republican Party to challenge Obama?

Can we explore his associations with the Wall Street vulture-capitalist crowd?

Can we look beyond his appearance and the rhetoric he is spewing to get the nomination of hapless Republicans?

This is a very important election coming up later this year.

We need to get rid of Obama.

Romney's not the guy to do it – nor would he provide much of an alternative if he were successful.

But, he doesn't have an eligibility problem.