Posted on 01/07/2016 3:38:08 PM PST by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We're gonna start in Rock Tavern, New York. This is Dale. I'm glad you called, sir. Welcome. You're up first today. It's a big responsibility be first caller of the day.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Here's the question. Donald Trump has made this statement about Cruz and of course the media's going all wacko with it. Is it possible that he -- that Trump -- is making a play or he's stumbled into a play in regards to immigration? Since Cruz was born outside of the United States but yet is an American citizen, is Trump again -- or did he stumble onto something whereby he's saying that about illegal immigrants, that they are really part of the country of their parents' origin, as opposed to American citizens when they come here and they are born here?
RUSH: I can see where you might think that. I don't think so, because I don't think Trump really believes that Cruz is not a citizen. That's not what this is about. This is not about people think that Ted Cruz is unqualified because he's not a citizen. Donald Trump already scored major points going after Obama. If you want to know what really put Trump on the map, it was this. It was this. Trump was the biggest birther. Trump staked a lot personally on the fact that Obama was not a citizen. He demanded to see the birth certificate.
When the birth certificate was produced, he said, "I don't believe it." Then they produced another, and after Obama and his group supposedly proved beyond a shadow-of-a doubt that he was a citizen, that he was born in Hawaii, Trump says, "I've never been happier. Look what I did! I drew 'em out. I made them produce the official documentation. Until I got into gear, nobody knew for sure." That was the first thing. That's what put Trump on the map. That established Trump with people who are now in his stable of supporters.
He established himself as not in the Obama camp.
He established himself as fearless and (unlike the Republicans) unafraid to raise the issue.
He did raise the issue. So that really... If you want to know who the first birther actually is, it would be none other than Barack Hussein O. Barack Hussein Obama is as responsible for this whole birther thing as anybody else because Barack Hussein O... I'm not sure on all the specifics details, but he was trying when he was a student somewhere -- I think at Columbia. He was trying to get a publishing deal or job or some such thing; he knew it would make him look much sexier if he were foreign born. So he lied and told some people he was born in Kenya.
And back in the day, publishers or whoever it was thought, "Oh, wow, man! We got a guy born in Kenya who's escaped all that! He's come here and he's triumphing in the American academy! Wow, wow! That'd be great book." And from that people said, "Wait a minute. He wasn't lying. He was telling the truth. He was born in Kenya; now he's trying to cover it up." Obama got that started, but that was Trump actually making his first move, was challenging Obama's citizenship when it was about put to bed.
It had about died out, the whole birther movement -- for lack of a better term -- and Trump came along and, man, put it back on the front page. Well, okay, he had success with it once. If it worked once, try it again. But this is strictly Trump... By the way, Trump is not doing the accusing. This is how Trump has learned from the first time he hit Cruz. He hit Cruz first time around, and that's when I warned Trump that he'd better back off doing it the way liberals do, 'cause he was mounting a challenge to Cruz that was right out of the mouths of how the left or the Republican establishment criticized conservatives.
I said, "You're damaging whatever support you have from conservative Republicans when you go after him that way," and he backed off, if you recall. And on this instance, all he's done is raised the question, "Uh, I think it might be someone Ted will want to look into that. I hope it's not a problem, really." Well, since the Republican establishment doesn't want either one of them -- since the Democrats don't want either one of them, since the media wants payback for Obama and this whole birther thing -- they have Trump open the door and they've run into it.
And now the media is breathless and very seriously, very concerned. "Is Cruz a citizen? It's a legitimate question," and panels have been put together, commissions, people on TV sitting around talking about it. It's become the big deal. It's become the latest intellectual exercise throughout the Drive-By Media and academia. Noted constitutional authorities left, right, up, down, center, middle, unattached, whatever, are all weighing in on it.
Everybody knows that when it's all over, Cruz is still gonna be a citizen, but that's not the point. The point here is to distract him, to raise doubts. And it doesn't take much. Remember the Friday before the 2000 election, when I guess it was the Algore camped leaked that Bush had had a DUI, 10, 15, 20 years ago? Remember how he almost lost the election over that because Bush had not talked about it? It doesn't take much to create doubt.
I think in this case they're missing the boat because the people for Cruz... I mean, they're locked solid. This kind of stuff is not gonna lose Cruz any support. That's the miscalculation everybody is making in this. Just like it didn't cause Obama to lose any support. It's a typical attack on a front-runner. I don't think Trump's trying to prove anything bigger with it, his issue of illegal immigration or anything like that. It's just Trump does not want to lose Iowa, and he's gotta get past Cruz if he wins it. It's no more complicated than that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: No, no, no. What it was, it was Obama's literary agent in a little 1991 booklet they were using to promote Obama's book, Dreams of My Father's Flags or whatever the heck it was. The agent... The booklet, the literary agent put it together, said that Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." The booklet was promoting Dreams of the Flags of My Father or whatever Obama's book was. Now, most writers will vet what their agents provide for PR. The truth be known, most authors have to do everything. I mean, you got people taking this and that percentage out, but the authors have to do everything.
I don't know in this case whether Obama actually just left it to the agent to write the booklet and didn't know or looked at what the agent wrote, saw that he was born in Kenya, and the agent said, "Yeah, man, it's gonna make it sexier! It'll sell a lot better. Here you are, you're some skinny, scraggly kid born in Kenya. You come to America, you conquered, you're a lawyer! Oh, wow, man! What a great bio we can sell." Obama says (impression), "Well, okay, fine with me."
And he did it.
Anyway, whoever vetted it or didn't, whoever wrote it or didn't, whoever approved it or didn't, the fact is that's what gave birth (if you will) to the idea that Obama was not born in American, that he was actually born in Kenya. It's his own PR material, his own pamphlet to sell his first book. And that's all it took. And when you have a person whose honesty is questioned in general, well, something like that is gonna be a huge hook to people, and it was. So they (the Obama people) now because that happened, they're just all excited over the allegation being made about Cruz.
So they're happy to play along. It's payback, quid pro quo, what have you.
END TRANSCRIPT
Rush is actually discussing issue
Suffice it to say there ARE intricacies of the law that will have to be settled here.
“What do you think about Cruz not being a natural born citizen?”
After Obama, I don’t care anymore.
There is no question that Cruz is a citizen of the United States. But there are many questions about where Obama was born, given that he has yet to submit a real birth certificate, rather than some kind of computer generated document, that is easily shown to be forged.
There are also questions about the validity of Obama’s social security number. Did he register for the draft when he turned 18?
We know practically nothing about Obama’s schooling, residences, law practices, etc. Nothing.
McCain lectured everyone about digging into the Obama birther issue.
McCain wouldn’t go after Obama, but he loves to go after Cruz.
McCain is really a democrat, threw that election, and now he should change parties and retire.
My reply to a friend who asked the same question: “Stare decisis”.
It is so convoluted now that it should be just, were you born a citizen.
Cruz was.
Obama probably was, if he is who he says he is.
I am tired of this issue. Cruz is a very good and strong conservative. He is my first choice. If he loses to Trump in the primary, I will vote for Trump in the general.
Anyone else win the primary, I will write a candidate in. I am done with the elite establishment “republicans”.
Not sure he did lie about that. That claim stood for something like 6 years. His hidden college records likely make the same claim.
Exactly my attitude.
Precedent Obama has rendered that clause moot.
Under the current definition of simply being born a citizen, if even only on one’s mother’s side, makes every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible.
I went to school in the 1960’s and was taught that natural born citizen was a subset of citizen and required only for the office of President. Must be born here to citizen parents. Reading the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution confirms this. They wanted no divided allegiance. If you could be anything other than a U.S. citizen, you can’t be a natural born citizen. No foreign births, no foreign parents.
Many people wanted the definition changed for various reasons.
Had Cruz been born in 1921 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1922, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.
Article II, Section I clause 5, was ratified in 1791 with the rest of the constitution, long before the Cable Act.. Article I has not been modified by any subsequent amendment. Accordingly, the original intent and meaning of Article II stands absent any such constitutional amendment.
The purpose of Article II, Section I clause 5 was to prevent undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers took their definition for NBC from Emmerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations, the 212th paragraph of which was quoted in it’s entirety in the 1814 Venus Merchantman decision. The Law of Nations is referred to in Article I of the constitution. That definition referred to an NBC as being born of two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation. That definition was cited in the 1868 case of Minor vs Hapersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US. De Vattel has been cited and accepted in dozens of SCOTUS and federal lower court rulings. The framers were patriarchs who believed t5hat the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship of the father.
The authors of the 14th amendment, Senators Howard Jacob and Rep. Bingham also defined an NBC in similar terms.
Obama is the very embodiment and personification of the REASON that the framers put those protections into the constitution. By ignoring it, we have opened ourselves to the anti American and unconstitutional tyranny that Obama poses to our constitutional republic.
Ted Cruz is head and shoulders the best candidate in the race. He is a patriot who loves this country and it’s people. He is intellectually and philosophically superior to ANYONE else in the race. As much as I admire him, He CANNOT be considered a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen by statute. He was born with THREE countries (The US, Canada, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not. I believe in the constitution and the rule of law, NOT in the cult of personality. We should not yield to the same dark impulses of expediency and delusion that gave us the tyrannical sociopathic usurper demagogue Obama.
I believe you are correct, however, Precedent Obama has rendered the point moot.
I will vote for Cruz if he is nominated.
I agree, thanks to Obama, we can ignore the issue.
What I really want to ask is off topic:
It’s about the word “moot.” I used it all the time until a few days ago when something caused me to wonder what it actually meant.
“As an adjective, moot originally meant arguable or subject to debate. With this sense of moot, a moot point was something that was open to debate. But, since around 1900, the adjective has gradually come to mean of no importance or merely hypothetical.”
http://grammarist.com/usage/moot-mute/
I don’t think “mute” is right either.
There’s a difference between its use in England and the US:
“...whether you mean that something is arguable or pointless, the spelling is m-o-o-t. - See more at:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/moot-versus-mute?page=all
Just thought I’d see what others think.
You’re right, of course. But “stare decisis” sounds cool.
That is what I was taught as well.
I have always thought that moot meant something that makes no difference. If, for instance, Ted Cruz dropped out of the race, I believe the question of whether he is a natural born citizen would be “rendered moot” by that action since the natural born citizen status has no meaning other than whether a person qualifies to be president.
Okay, I see your point. I may have misread the source when first looking it up; or else gotten it from a source in the UK, where usage does differ. In the past I had used it offhandedly to in the sense of “irrelevant.”
The shading of these words here are different: you were saying that Cruz’s status as a citizen is abstract and of no current practical importance in our current political situation; ‘moot’ seems to describe the situation better.
If Cruz were NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT his status as a citizen would have no practical importance. Being a natural born citizen as opposed to just a citizen is only meaningful in the context of whether a person is eligible to be president. In all other matters a person born in another country to parents who are citizens of another country and naturalized as an American citizen is equal to any citizen born in America to American parents but not when running for president, therefore the question of whether a person is a natural born citizen is “moot” unless they are a candidate for the presidency or vice presidency.
This is the way that I have seen moot used in the past. I was not actually aware until reading your post that there are other conflicting definitions. Some of the definitions given would seem to make the meaning of moot a moot point (subject to discussion) in view of the fact that some definitions seem to be in conflict.
One example given by Merriam Webster is, “The court ruled that the issue is now moot because the people involved in the dispute have died.” This is the meaning I have always attached to the word, simply put it no longer matters.
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.