Skip to comments.No, Ted Cruz ‘birthers’ are not the same as Obama birthers (dispute about law not facts?)
Posted on 08/20/2013 9:18:54 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Questions about Cruzs eligibility have everything to do with interpretation of the law; the questions about Obamas eligibility had everything to do with a dispute over the underlying facts more specifically, conspiracy theories about whether the president was actually born in the United States, as he claimed, and whether he somehow forged a birth certificate that said he was born in Hawaii.
Obama was also born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, meaning if he was in fact born outside the United States, the situations might be parallel. But birthers werent making a legal argument about Obama; they were arguing the facts about where he was born and accusing him of perpetrating a massive fraud.
In Cruzs case, nobody is disputing the underlying facts of the case that Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a mother who was a United States citizen. As we wrote back in March, that makes him a U.S. citizen himself, but its not 100 percent clear that that is the same thing as a natural born citizen the requirement for becoming president.
Most scholars think its the same thing, and the Congressional Research Service said in 2011 that someone like Cruz most likely qualifies to run for president. But to this point, there is no final word from the courts, because while foreign-born candidates have run including George Romney and John McCain none of them has actually won and had his eligibility challenged.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The bogus 2011 CRS report claiming that mere biological connection to a US citizen at birth no matter where the birth took place qualifies the baby for NBC status is cited, a report that would support Barry's eligibility even if it were discovered that he was born in Kenya.
Ping to WaPo article claiming that “birthers” never disputed Barry’s legal eligibility under the definition of NBC (article missed Donofrio’s challenges over UK subject dad), but only claimed a birth location conspiracy.
Erroneous 2011 CRS report cited in the article.
The 2011 CRS article cited the Marguet-Pillado case dicta. See my FR article:
Rats applying the double standard now that Cruz is becoming a serious threat to their rule in 2016.
No amount of contortions and rationalizations can hide the fact that ‘progressives’ and especially progressive journalists are flaming hypocrites.
The Double-Standard is written in stone.
Complain all we like, won`t change that fact.
obama/soetoro`s father was a foreigner , he is not, never will be natural born.
Cruz is closer to natural born than obama/soetoro ever will be,
“But birthers werent making a legal argument about Obama; they were arguing the facts about where he was born and accusing him of perpetrating a massive fraud.”
In addition to the Donofrio cases, every Orly Taitz case and all of Mario Apuzzo’s cases...actually just about every “birther” case has made “a legal argument” regarding Barry’s claimed (apparent) UK subject dad.
And neither will the same obscure the fact that Ted Cruz is NOT “natutral born citizen”.
Cruz needs to step up.
But birthers werent making a legal argument about Obama; they were arguing the facts about where he was born and accusing him of perpetrating a massive fraud.
Bald-faced liberal lie. And they know they can get away with it.
How many SS #s does Cruz have? Can we see his college records? How many aliases?
I'm not about to change my mind where Cruz is concerned.
The fact it’s coming from the Washington Post means it’s full of crap. THE FOREIGNER hired attorneys to fight the release of of his back ground information from the get go because he knew it was totally fraudulent. After three years he released what was determined by every expert that examined it to be a completely counterfeit birth certificate. He won’t release his college info because it shows he was a foreign student. The socialist democrats will pay a huge price come 2014 and 2016 for taking a dump on the american people and our laws for this eligibility fraud. That has Zero to do with Cruz.
Once again, the press malfeasance is inexcusable. They post a picture of Obama’s *Certificate of Live Birth*, and caption it as “Obama’s birth certificate.”
1. If that is his actual birth certificate, and it was released prior to the election (with much arm twisting, unlike McCain), why was there so much hoopla around the release of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE on April 27, 2011?
2. That document is titled a “Certificate of Live Birth.” Anyone who has had a baby knows that a COLB and birth certificate are two different things. When we had our kids, they handed us the COLBs on the spot - no questions asked about citizenship, identity, or anything. A COLB is used to prove a kid *was born* for insurance purposes and whatnot. You can have a baby ANYWHERE, show up at a hospital within a few days, and they will issue you a certificate. The birth certificate for my children, on the other hand, had to be *applied for*. Big difference.
Lying liars can let go of the lies they once told. Why not show the document Obama released on April 27, 2011? Because the press can’t stomach the fact that they LIED about the fact that he had released his birth certificate BEFORE that. If they now held up the actual birth certificate AS the birth certificate, they would have to admit that birthers were telling the truth up to that point: namely, that Obama HADN’T released his birth certificate until 2011.
“somehow forged a birth certificate.”
Well, I hate to say it, but the on-line COLB Obama had posted at the White House web site is an out-and-out forgery. He didn’t even bother to arrange a well-done forgery, although he had several years to do it after the controversy began.
This WaPo writer, like all the rest of them, never ever deigns to confront those facts. All he can do in response to the forgery—which is obvious to the dullest eye that bothers to look—is to scream the usual personal insult: “Birther! Birther! Birther!”
Why is no one pushing this?? I believe Obama is not qualified....but why isn’t anyone proving this once and for all?
And like with so much of our world, our Republic's Constitution is target rich, but defender poor.
Year by year, it appears that we'll have to go all the way to the bottom before we understand what we have been warned to stay away from.
Let's hope we don't have to lose it all to finally understand the value of what we lost.
Soetoro has a pdf file of... something.
That is why I will not be complicit to any degree in any sudden press interest in Cruz's birth eligibility now.
Has it occurred to anyone that Cruz is playing his hand to force the discussion that would out Zippos ineligibility?
As I was reading down this thread, I started thinking that and then read your post.
T’would be a brilliant move on Cruz’s part.
He is no dummy. I also get the impression that he does not have this huge ego that would get in the way of reality. I think he knows he is not eligible and he knows Zippos is not as well. He has not brought up the idea of running for President, the MSM has. They did that in hopes of the masses and the GOP to allow it in an effort to show that Zippo was eligible.
Prove it! And NOT with another fake BC!
Until a valid birth certificate is presented, there is no proof that 0bama was whelped by Stanley Dunham. He could well have been adopted.
The chumps at WaPo can’t be trusted.
They will do a bait and switch, contort their views if Cruz attempts to run. They will cheer lead for the OBots and HillBots against Cruz and forget that bogus 2011 CRS report. They’ll all scream jus soli jus soli and Cruz is not! I highly doubt Cruz will attempt to run.
What is the ‘same’ is the issue of current day dual citizenship - or at least dual citizenship eligibility.
Like Cruz (and the PM of Thailand)Obama was born (assuming any shred of truth in the debunked narrative story) to a British Citizen father - BHO (Sr.). As such he was at least eligible for British Citizenship.
Some say Obama (based on the debunked narrative story) was a US citizen at birth. But he was ALSO British citizen at birth. And there is no indication he ever formally denounced his British heritage. To do so requires form RN and an appearance in front of a British official.
So is the matter completely different? No.
Given the ‘strong check’ against foreign influence that the natural born requirement is supposed to provide it is doubtful that the founding fathers would accept the son of Cuban or (especially) British citizen father as natural born.
Of course the article does bring forward the real issue with Obama - who is he and what is his (real) past. His own (with some likely help from Mr. Ayers) auto-biography contains a narrative that is now known and exposed to be filled with falehoods. He father did not leave the family. They never were a ‘family’. He omitted anything of him and his mother living in Washington. Its all a lie. And there is no doubt its a lie at this point. So what was the truth. Why was the truth hidden, omitted and changed? If part of the infamous narrative is suspect - the its all suspect.
Amazing how the real issue oozes out of an article like this. Even WaPo can not keep it from leaking out.
Doesn’t being born to US citizens make you a US citizen?
I have definite ideas on the subject, though. One of those ideas is that a "natural born Citizen" is the offspring of two American citizens, whether naturalized, natives, or naturals.
Call me crazy, but I would really like the SCOTUS to look at one of the many well-founded appeals that has reached their office. Instead, various of the black-robed bum-kissers have admitted avoiding the issue all together on various legal pretexts they have cobbled together, some based on the "no standing" doctrine, as if this issue were a medical malpractice suit or an insurance claim. IOW, I have no right to know because I didn't run against the gay community organizer from Chicago myself?
Now this Cruz fellow is really doing us a favor, because as the redoubtable Carp points out, his case does not involve the facts of his origin. They are simple enough. He was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. End of story. The question is, "Does the LAW say he's an American natural?"
Now if that ain't a question for the Supremes, I don't know what the hell could be. Win, lose, or draw, Cruz is doing us a real favor, unlike the Mombasa MF who has managed to throw the fog of mystery and confusion over every aspect of his deep, dark past.
What about Rubio? Neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. Does the LAW say he's eligible just because he was born in Florida? Both of the Gippo Jihadi MF Morsi's kids were born here. Does that mean THEY are eventually eligible to run for POTUS?
Come on Supremes! Shift your robèd rumps and figure out a way to give us some answers. Start small. Is the offspring of two aliens born here a citizen? Of two illegal aliens? What is a citizen anyway? Then the grand finale: "What is an Art. II "natural born Citizen?" This ain't about Obama, at least any more. It's about the Constitution of The United States. It's about the Republic.
Using the common understanding of the founders (Madison, Jefferson, et. al), being born to 2 parents might satisfy NBC. To “Mad&Jeff”, birth on US soil would also be a requirement (Cletus agrees to the point of “service to the US” on foreign soil).
Senator Cruz was born on Canadian soil to ONE US citizen (his mother). His father, at the time of his birth was a Cuban national living in Canada.
If we rail against Obamaugabe’s citizenship, citing his Kenyan-national father, how do we justify our “dispensation” for Cruz simply because he agrees with conservative ideology?
“Amazing how the real issue oozes out of an article like this. Even WaPo can not keep it from leaking out.”
There are over 1,450 comments on the article so far bringing out a lot of “birther” claims that Barry is not NBC due to a foreign father and also including an early comment with a link to the MCCCP website and Zullo’s Posse video contesting the authenticity of the LFBC and HI birth narrative.
“Win, lose, or draw, Cruz is doing us a real favor, unlike the Mombasa MF who has managed to throw the fog of mystery and confusion over every aspect of his deep, dark past.”
After-birthers and Fogblowers doing a happy-dance over the recent seemingly credible claims that Barry’s WH LFBC pdf anomalies can be replicated on a Xerox WorkCentre copier have no explanation for all of the layers of plausible deniability legally constructed and aggressively litigated appearing to protect Barry from liability for forging his own BC!
I certainly hope so.
Well said, and I hope you’re right about Cruz’ intent being to bring the NBC/eligibility question to a head. Unfortunately, as time goes by, I become ever more cynical about the whole mess.
The globalists have decided that A2S1C5 is an impediment to their goals, and it is therefore being systematically neutered. Until the government once again fears the citizenry, rather than the other way around, we’ll continue down this road to complete subjugation and tyranny.
It’s enough to make eagles weep.
Yes, but by statutory law, not natural law.
Natural born citizens as are referred to in the US Constitution are citizens born with natural allegiance to a particular country, and none other.
Statutory citizens are creations of congress through the execution of their power to naturalize. They may have double or triple claims on their allegiance.
In a war, they could end up fighting on a different side, depending on what country they happen to be in when it breaks out.
This actually happened in wars between France and England.
This ain't about Obama, at least any more. It's about the Constitution of The United States. It's about the Republic.
Check out # 29.
Thanks, Kenny Bunk.
Thank you LucyT, can’t wait to see how this pans out!!
It was never about Obama. It was and is about the US Constitution and the US as a sovereign nation.
The author is merely teaching us what HIS defintion of an Obama birther is. The author would not call Leo Donofrio an Obama birther.
Cruz’s father was a foreigner too, Cuban citizen living in Canada when Cruz was born.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States" Oh, those silly founding fathers. Look at the ink they wasted repeating themselves. Oh, wait, they weren't so dumb and they didn't think We the People were so dumb not to know the definition of "is" either. By making the distinction, they have indeed made it 100% clear there's a difference between a citizen and a NBC.
So what did the Supreme Court have to say about it?
Not necessarily. SADO hadn't lived here the required 5 years past her 14th birthday to pass on her US citizenship when he was born. With neither parent able to give him US citizenship, the only way he could have it is if he were actually born here or became a naturalized citizen and neither of those gets him NBC status.
Remember who was on the Senate committee that vetted McLame but didn’t vet the Kenyan? McCaskill. She has tried time and again to get the NBC thrown out of the Constitution. Apparently, crowning Mr. Ineligible was easier than striking down Article II.
It seems that the 'Rat strategy will be to knock out any possible Cruz presidential bid on the NBC issue as soon as possible, while at the same time covering up for Obama's multiple document frauds. This WaPo article was timely from the 'rat perspective, since Cruz's production of a bona fide BC this week. In addition, they are probably troubled about House legislation to be introduced shortly by Rep. Stockman and some other Republicans calling for an investigation into possible Obama document fraud and the related Obama constitutional eligibility issues. (Yes, it seems like a long-awaited breakthrough has occurred.)
Then the neo-marxist left, being headed by the non-natural citizen obama/soetoro, cannot claim Cruz is ineligible .
Excellent point, bgill. They were requiring presidents born after the adoption of the Constitution to be Natural Born Citizens, but required only citizenship at the time of the adaption of the Constitution for those prospective presidents who were already alive at that time.
And there is little doubt that by "Natural Born Citizen," they knew exactly what they meant: the Vattel definition, with which they were familiar.
When plural, the statement is correct.
According to the law, yes it does. Cruz is eligible.
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.