Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother] Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.

TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary; arizona; awjeez; birtherbs; california; canada; carlcameron; congress; cowabunga; cruz2016; debatingbirthers; fff; foxisnotcredible; japan; mccain; mexico; naturalborncitizen; newmexico; obama; teaparty; tedcruz; tedcruziseligible; texas; thisspaceforrent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 1,561-1,579 next last
To: butterdezillion

The issue of Obama’s eligibility was discussed and decided by the US Supreme Court in 1898.

Cruz is in a grey area. A court could arguably declare him ineligible.

741 posted on 03/10/2013 10:21:37 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog; Mr Rogers
However, after sleeping on it, I’m wondering if it didn’t also have something to do with some sort of “age of accountability.”

After all, if the minimum age of a President is 35yrs old, and you subtract the 14yrs residency requirement (assuming a continuous residency), you hit the magic age of 21-years-old.

That was the voting age back then. So, I’m thinking it might have something to do with that.

Aha. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a winner on my 14 year question.

Now there's no proof of this, because unlike some of the discussions on terms of Senators and Representatives, as far as I can tell, they didn't leave a record of the discussion. If I'm wrong on that, someone feel free to correct me. But I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Now we are in the realm of speculation here. Because we don't know for certain. But doesn't the number 14 seem a bit odd to you? Again, why not 15?

But if you subtract 14 from 35, you get 21. Which is exactly the legal age of adulthood in those days.

Now. Consider the historical context. On July 4, 1776, a bunch of people got together and they wrote this thing called a Declaration of Independence. And that document presumed to speak for every person on the North American continent, and to say, "We're done with you. We're starting our own blasted country."

Only it didn't. All of the people had been English citizens all of their lives, and there were quite a few who wanted to stay that way.

And more than a few of these people packed up their children and moved to England.

But what about those little children? They were born here. Did they not have any say?

By the time of the Constitutional Convention, some of those children were 11 years old. Well, what if they wanted to come back to America? Some who went to England did, and threw in their lot, forever, with us. Like William Rawle. He was one of those. His parents were Loyalists. He had come back to America in 1783, four years before the Convention, and was a bright young man who had been meeting with George Washington and Ben Franklin right there in Philadelphia, and talking about important things like... how to encourage people to come over here and cast their lot in with us.


So what rights did these children have, who were carried away from America by their parents and raised in some place like England?

A later Court would say that such children had always had at least the right to come back here and be Americans, on reaching adulthood.

I submit to you - now this is speculation, mind you - I submit to you that the Framers likely had these people in mind when they wrote the Presidential eligibility clause.

They wanted to encourage immigration of good people from Europe, while avoiding being taken over by British royalty. That much is known.

They actually had before them at least one known example of a bright young man who had come back from England and thrown his lot in with us.

I submit that they quite likely had in mind the children born here of British loyalists and carried off to England to be raised in England, when they wrote that clause. And they wanted to attract such people back, and so they specifically wrote the Constitution in such a way that such people could be raised in a foreign country until they were 21 years of age, and then as young adults come back here and precisely on reaching the age of 35 years, they would know that they could aspire to the highest office in the land.

If this is correct, then it means that the Framers of the Constitution specifically intended that a person born here could be carried abroad as a child, spend his entire growing up and formative years raised in a foreign country, and then decide he really wants to be an American, and come back here - even though he was raised in a foreign country - and live here until age 35, and run for President.

Well. So much for "foreign influence."

But let's set that aside for a moment, and just look at the number of years from a different perspective.

Fourteen years. That's not very long, is it?

So you're telling me that a guy could be 54 years old, and run for President of the United States, and have spent up to 40 of those years living in some other country.

Well, that's what the Framers of the Constitution said. It's not my idea. It's theirs.

So whether I am right about the kids-being-raised-in-other-countries thing or not, the whole meme that they wanted to pull out all the stops to avoid the faintest taint of foreign influence is simply false. And that is shown, very loudly, by their actions.

Yes, they were concerned about the Duke of Derrydoo or someplace swooping in here and buying up the Presidency.

But they don't seem to have have cared a fig whether someone born here spent most of his life abroad. And they don't seem to have cared a fig that Thomas Jefferson was a dual citizen with France, while serving with President.

So the whole birther meme is just false. It doesn't honor the Founders. It doesn't honor their intentions. It's all about what these people think the Founders ought to have wanted. And not about what they really did want.

Gee, these people are better Founders than the Founders. They are smarter Framers than the Framers.

It's too bad we didn't have these people around when the country was being founded. Because Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton... these people were obviously just a bunch of hacks who didn't know what they were doing.

Maybe someone can invent a time machine and send some of these people back to the 1700s, so we can all benefit from their wisdom.

742 posted on 03/10/2013 10:23:10 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

First off, could you please provide your source for the claim that Jefferson was given French citizenship? Since the first time I have heard such was on this thread, and having spent some time looking around the net for information on this I am coming up with nothing. I read his official bio and it is not mentioned.

Meanwhile, honorary citizenship was frequently bestowed on prominent persons. Still happens in this day and age. It was understood to be a “gift”, a compliment.

But to put that to the side, Jefferson would have been grandfathered in regardless.

For the focus of this thread, Jefferson’s mid-life acceptance of honorary French citizenship (if such a thing happened) adds nothing to the discussion. Did Jefferson go there seeking to throw off his US citizenship and emigrate to France?


743 posted on 03/10/2013 10:26:38 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Why are you responding to a comment that I made to someone else as though I made it to you?

744 posted on 03/10/2013 10:30:25 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest

“Did Jefferson go there seeking to throw off his US citizenship and emigrate to France?”

Did Obama throw off his US citizenship and emigrate to the UK?

Has Obama shown anything but contempt and hatred to the UK? Is there any sign he considers the UK to be his second country, even?

Has he asked to become even an honorary citizen of Kenya?

Where does the US Constitution ban a dual citizen from running for President?

For a reference to Jefferson, this is what I found:

745 posted on 03/10/2013 10:32:45 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Blah blah blah.

If Vladimir Putin was elected as President and acted as President, would it violate the 2nd Article of the Constitution and the 20th Amendment? Answer the question.

When pressed to disclose the records on which Fukino based her public statements, Deputy AG Nagamine ended up saying to my colleague that it was based on Obama’s name being in the birth index. I have proven that the 1960-64 birth index was altered to include specific names from non-valid records. I have not seen any afterbirther deal with that fact. At all. It’s like the plague. Why did they alter that index? If we take Fukino at her word, then, none of her statements mean anything because they were based on a FABRICATED birth index.

The only LAWFUL, OFFICIAL word we’ve got is from Alvin Onaka, when asked in a legal procedure. The only time he was ever asked to verify any birth facts for Obama, he would not verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama. When he was asked to verify that the White House image was a “true and accurate representation” of the HI record he would not. When he was asked to verify that the information contained in the White House image was identical to the information in the HI record he would not. He is required by statute to verify anything he can, when asked by a qualified requestor.

IOW, he has effectively confirmed that the White House image is NOT a true and accurate representation of the HI record, that the information contained in it is not identical to the information in the HI record, and that he cannot confirm even that Obama is male or that he who claims to have been born in Honolulu was actually born on the island of Oahu.

The only logical reason that Onaka could confirm what he did, refuse to confirm what he did, and still claim to be obeying the law (all this on 3 separate, consistent verifications) is if the HI record is legally non-valid. The presumption of regularity means that it is legally presumed that Onaka acted according to the law, as he claimed. IOW, the legal presumption at this point has to be that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid.

Which also happens to explain why Fukino based her claims on a birth index that was altered to include individual non-valid names.

And also happens to explain why the White House had to forge a COLB and a long-form, and why his draft registration had to be forged, why he doesn’t have a valid US social security number and fails e-verify, why his passport had to be breached 3 times, why he claimed until 2007 that he was born in Kenya, and why Soros’ people have threatened the media heads with annihilation and/or death if they allowed Obama’s ineligibility to be reported. It also explains why the 2 people who agreed to present a petition for Hillary to be able to challenge Obama’s eligibility at the DNC Convention in 2008 died very shortly after agreeing to do it, which necessitated Phil Berg filing a federal lawsuit the day after the 2nd volunteer died.

There’s much more I could say - stuff that is explained by this reality - but it’s wasted on you. You won’t even deal with the blatant stuff I just mentioned above.

I have one thing left to say specifically to you, then: One Day the truth will be known, and Obama, Soros, and all the rest who sided with them will bow to the truth. Until then, say what you want - but know that in the end you’ll have to eat every word you’ve said, and the bitter taste will not be worth the gloat you get right now from siding with the hostage-takers. The truth will not be hostage forever. You will do well to remember that. In the end it is Lazarus who has plenty for eternity, not the rich man who so despised Lazarus. Eat your fill of gloat now, if you like, because the memory of the gloating will have to last you through an eternity of regret.

746 posted on 03/10/2013 10:37:34 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest

I’ll add that I’m not concerned with Jefferson. Prior to this thread, I had not heard he had been made a French citizen. However, the dual citizenship argument makes no sense, since the Constitution does not address it. The idea that a foreign country can pass a law making it illegal for a US citizen to run for President is simply bizarre - almost as bizarre as the idea that Obama considers himself a subject of Queen Elizabeth!

747 posted on 03/10/2013 10:37:50 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers
Why are you responding to a comment that I made to someone else as though I made it to you?

It's an open conversation, right? You told this guy what he said made no sense to you. I chimed in and said that what he said made perfect sense to me.

So why are you NOT responding to the question that I asked of YOU? Let's try again:

So let's explore your theory. By your theory, it matters, a great deal, if some other country says that my child, born here in America, is a citizen of theirs.

According to your theory, if that other country extends citizenship to them, and makes them BORN their citizen, then that makes them ineligible to OUR Presidency. Right?

It's a pretty simple question. Straightforward, yes or no question.

748 posted on 03/10/2013 10:38:56 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Nero Germanicus

Hawaii told Arizona that Obama Jr was born there:

749 posted on 03/10/2013 10:39:56 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

750 posted on 03/10/2013 10:41:57 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Given the multiple questions surrounding Obama’s birth and parentage, but assuming BHO-I as his bio-father, and especially given the same questions arising for million of young Americans known as ‘anchor babies,’ I maintain and have maintained that the SCOTUS is doing everyone a disservice by refusing to tackle the question of the Framers’ intent in inserting the ‘natural born’ language into the Constitution for presidential eligibility but for no other.

I would argue that that Office is so unique, so special, so different from all others, that the Framers wanted it filled only by one who had the idea of the USA and all it stood for deeply embedded in his bones from Day One. All circumstances of birth and parentage notwithstanding, IMO, the current occupant of the office does not hold that idea or its ideals in his bosom.

I wouldn’t say that Obama’s occupancy of the Office is proof, but it is certainly precedent that merely claiming to have been born on US soil is adequate to meeting the requirement. How it applies to Cruz is another matter altogether. His parents weren’t in Canada as foreign service or military personnel whose children born abroad appear to be exempted in most interpretations. All interesting questions raised and yet ‘evaded’ by SCOTUS.

751 posted on 03/10/2013 10:46:35 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Hahahahaha! Is Mr. Rodgers your alter-ego?

How is:

“If the Constitution makes no mention of dual citizenship, then how can the Constitution bar a dual citizen from being President?”

even worth responding to? It’s surprising he didn’t wrap it up with a hearty, “So there!”

The Constitution isn’t a document for dimwits.

Again I ask you to present your source of proof that dual citizenship was an officially recognized class of citizenship in either the US or in England at the time the Constitution was signed.

Because you see, if it was not even considered a form of citizenship at all, if it in essence “did not exist”, it would not have been mentioned at all - anywhere.

Which is why you cannot produce any source mentioning dual citizenship as a legitimate form of citizenship, officially recognized or not, at or before the signing of the Constitution.

752 posted on 03/10/2013 10:46:47 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Given the absence of any legally-determined birth facts for Obama, he might have been born in 1898. But he looks a little young for that so I doubt that his eligibility could have been determined by any court in 1898. To determine Obama’s eligibility we have to start out with some legally-determined birth facts, and Onaka would not verify any birth facts for Obama.

I’m glad that you realize that there are eligibility situations which have not been decided by the courts. The refusal of the courts to take up the eligibility challenges - for ANY of the challenged candidates (McCain, Obama, and the non-US citizen that Donofrio challenged appearing on the NJ ballot) - means that we have precedent of somebody known to not even be a US citizen at all being able to make it to the ballot. If that person had been elected there would presumably be precedent set for a non-US citizen to be President.

This is dangerous stuff. The refusal of the courts to do their jobs means that we have lawlessness, which makes everything shaky.

Under this system, how is somebody like Cruz ever supposed to know whether to spend his money on a Presidential run, or whether it would all be wasted because of an eventual SCOTUS decision? The system is forcing Cruz and/or anybody else with questionable birth circumstances to play “chicken” with the Constitution and with their own money and future. And it is making every person who contributes to his campaign or votes for him in a primary play “chicken” too. It means that if he IS eligible he will still lose votes from some people because they don’t want to take the risk of him being found ineligible. If he ISN’T eligible it means that some eligible conservative candidate loses primary votes to him. The whole thing is unconscionable. The courts are holding us hostage by refusing to settle these questions - “evading” them, as Justice Thomas says. They can be as coy as they want but the truth of the matter is that they are hurting ALL of us by playing cat-and-mouse with the Constitution.

I hate this. I’m about ready to give up on this country altogether, and that’s a sad, sad thing for me to say because I have always loved this country. I don’t even recognize her any more.

753 posted on 03/10/2013 10:48:54 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If “natural born” has anything to do with sole allegiance, then the Constitution does address dual citizenship.

754 posted on 03/10/2013 10:54:25 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers

Look. If I understand your argument, it is that dual citizens at birth are not eligible to be President. Right?

Yes, or no.

So according to your theory, if another country made a person who was born a US citizen ALSO born THEIR citizen, then that person is ineligible to be President of the United States. Right?

Yes or no.

These are simple yes or no questions.

Why can I not get a straight, yes or no answer from these birthers? It’s like I’m asking them to derive Einstein’s equation.

755 posted on 03/10/2013 10:54:59 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“But he looks a little young for that so I doubt that his eligibility could have been determined by any court in 1898.”

Sorry. I was writing as an adult, presumably to an adult. I wasn’t aware I needed to borrow some crayons to exchange views with you.

If Obama was born within the USA, then WKA (1898) controls his situation. And Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii, after Hawaii was made a state. So that pretty well settles it, unless you have proof that Hawaii lied to the state of Arizona.

Proof, not wacky conspiracy ideas with space aliens coming to earth and swapping documents....

756 posted on 03/10/2013 11:00:41 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Where on there is the gender, date of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name ever mentioned?

If Onaka doesn’t specifically mention it then he did not verify it as requested. The only reason for him to not verify something he was requested by a qualified requestor is if he CAN’T verify it because that claim was not made on a legally-valid record.

IOW, unless you can show me “male”, “Aug 4, 1961”, “Oahu”, “Stanley Ann Dunham”, and “Barack Hussein Obama”, Onaka has effectively confirmed that none of those claims are made on a legally-valid HI BC.

So show me where those items are mentioned.

BTW, TPM Muckraker publishing only HALF of Bennett’s request is yellow journalism to the millionth degree. It’s like cutting out a bunch of conversation from a transcript, so that one question is asked and all you hear is the answer to a different question. To know what Onaka is SUPPOSED to verify if the record is valid, you have to know EVERYTHING that was asked. In order to get the half of the request that they published, TPM Muckraker had to also get the other half of the request. THEY EDITED THAT OUT, which is literally journalistic malpractice. Why did they do that?

757 posted on 03/10/2013 11:00:57 AM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Ladysforest

Natural born has nothing to do with sole allegiance, as discussed at great length by the US Supreme Court in 1898. It simply meant born in the USA, of parents here “in amity” with the US government.

Since we do not control the laws of Botswana, we cannot prevent Botswana from declaring all of us to be citizens of Botswana. But it wouldn’t matter if they did, because the US Constitution doesn’t discuss dual citizenship, nor use it to bar anyone from running for office.

758 posted on 03/10/2013 11:04:48 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
This is all just speculation. What does native mean? Born in the United States. What evidence is there for a distinction drawn that you are drawing here? Absolutely none.

My distinction is simple: as I stated in my "assumption," they didn't have a JFK airport or Ellis Island in the 1780s with ships coming in every day by the dozens or hundreds. It would be weeks or months before a ship arrived.

In those times, if you were born here you born to natives who were already here.

I'm saying that in the language of the time, it was assumed that native or natural born in America were born to the already established citizens of the country.

I read in the Commentaries of Blackstone that in England it was assumed that a child of aliens born in England was considered to be a natural-born subject, but in France the child of an alien born if France is still an alien. The assumptions were different in Europe because the countries were very close and many shared borders where cross-border travel was common.

Cross-border travel in America was not so easy because you had to cross the Atlantic in a 3-mast ship, which was an expensive endeavor.

An assumption? Yes, but a reasonable one to make.


759 posted on 03/10/2013 11:12:53 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

No, what Hawaii has officially verified is that they cannot verify any birth facts for Obama. See the last post I made to you. Yellow journalism hid the truth of what Onaka actually did, by failing to look at the rules Onaka had to follow and by editing out half of Bennett’s request to Onaka. I’ve posted on that a lot around here, but if you haven’t seen it, you can see Klayman’s letter about this at

Another explanation is at

And BTW, 2 attorneys who have argued based on Minor v Happersett have confirmed that the legal reasoning is sound. Bennett made it clear that he was requesting the items on the actual request form to be verified. He requested that the other items be verified “from the birth record”, which allows Onaka to interpret it to mean a request for verification that those are the items that are on the BC - not that those are the real birth facts (items found on a VALID BC). In addition, the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee fashioned their request to specifically NOT ask for any birth facts to be verified. Their request was what convinced me that even hostile attorneys recognize that Onaka confirmed a legally non-valid BC for Obama. And the counsel for NE SOS John Gale could not rebut the logic either - chose instead to say that NE doesn’t have to care what HI told AZ (after first claiming that Bennett never requested DOB, gender, etc to be verified). So by either words to me or actions, I’ve got 6 hostile attorneys who have admitted that this legal reasoning is sound.

Recently it was reported that George Zimmerman’s lawyer had requested the hospital records for Witness 8, to verify her claim that she was Trayvon’s girlfriend and missed the funeral because she was hospitalized. The prosecution admitted that there were no records, which the media reported as “effectively confirming” that she was not hospitalized. The admission that there was no hospital record is indirect confirmation that she wasn’t in the hospital. Bennett requested verification that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama - and NONE of that was verified. That is an admission that they have no legally-valid BC that makes those claims.

760 posted on 03/10/2013 11:13:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 1,561-1,579 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson