Ted Cruz is going to New Hampshire. Will they like him?

Washington Post ^ | August 23 at 6:30 am | Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan

[PA-RIVER]

What Canadians do is there business. That’s right, Ted Cruz, as a Canadian, is entitled to his privacy regarding his Canadian citizenship. I agree. What he thinks about US foreign policy, as a Canadian, really is his Canadian business. We are in total agreement on that notion of respecting a foreign citizens views on our politics.

[Ray76]

Still trotting out your Bayard claim?

Bayard is contrary to law and your claims are overstatements, which you have been shown several times, recently in this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3054477/posts?page=77#77

Exaggeration is one thing, repeatedly posting the same falsehood and exaggeration is deliberate deception, i.e. lying.

[PA-RIVER]

I didn’t know Sarah Palin was born in Ontario. Does she speak French? Bon Jour!

[Tau Food]

I think you should continue to make your pitch to the voters and their electors (who, under our Constitution, select our presidents). If they buy your pitch, then Cruz won't be elected. If, on the other hand, he gets elected, you'll be in at least as good a position as you are today.

If 2016 presents a choice between Cruz and Clinton, many of those who currently sympathize with birther goals will probably reconsider the birther's NBC theories and support Senator Cruz. For them, all of this birther mania will seem like nothing more than an old, twisted, ugly nightmare starring Orly Taitz. At that point, birtherism will belong to a small group of leftists supporting Hillary Clinton.

Good luck to you. ;-)

Ted Cruz - 2016

[PA-RIVER]

I notice you refuse to answer why an NBC is renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

One day we can elect a foreign citizens who has waged war against the United states as a foreign citizen, for his foreign father, because he had an American Mother when he was born. If we take your logic at face value, that’s a real possibility. Imagine that, having a president whose military experience is killing American soldiers on behalf of his other dual citizen nation. An American Mother is all that counts.

We could elect a Putin Jr. , born and raised in Russia. Now that’s special.

[campaignPete R-CT]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3058502/posts

I guess it went well:

“About 100 people came to meet and listen to Cruz as he headlined a fundraiser for the N.H. State Republican Party held at the home of former ambassador Joseph Petrone”

[Tau Food]

I notice you refuse to answer why an NBC is renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

Well, I know no more about that than you do. My guess is that he wants to partially disarm some of the worst of the NBC crackpots. And, in response, the worst of the NBC crackpots might claim that he was actually born in Cuba and that Fidel Castro is his real father.

************************

Imagine that, having a president whose military experience is killing American soldiers on behalf of his other dual citizen nation.

Sorry, but I just can't imagine the American public electing "a president whose military experience is killing American soldiers on behalf of his other dual citizen nation." However, I want you to keep telling other people whenever you do imagine things like that.

************************

We could elect a Putin Jr. , born and raised in Russia. Now that’s special.

Or Prince Charles! Who wouldn't vote for him?

Have we run out of real risks to worry about?

[FXRP]

We like him already!

[SoConPubbie]

I agree.

Furthermore, I think if you scratch the surface of many of these “Natural Law” supporters, you’ll find a Paul fan.

[Jeff Winston]

Bayard is contrary to law and your claims are overstatements, which you have been shown several times, recently in this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3054477/posts?page=77#77

Exaggeration is one thing, repeatedly posting the same falsehood and exaggeration is deliberate deception, i.e. lying.

I would've thought you were a better man than to engage in the ad hominem attacks.

At worst, it's a difference of opinion.

And as you well know, it isn't just James Bayard who holds the same opinion I do. His book was reviewed - and this is documented - by Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent and other "distinguished jurists" in the year 1833.

Which was a hell of a lot closer to 1787 than 2013 is.

The fact is, there isn't the slightest indication that ANY of these legal experts of the early United States - ALL OF WHOM KNEW THE FOUNDING GENERATION PERSONALLY - agree with your take on the matter.

That being the case, why do you continue to cling stubbornly to what is obviously a stupid-@$$ed position, and call those of us who AGREE WITH AMERICA'S EARLY LEGAL EXPERTS "liars?"

[Ray76]

It is not a matter of opinion, Bayard’s claim is contrary to law. This is a fact that is easily verified.

I point out the fact that you repeatedly post what has been shown to be incorrect. I am not disputing Bayard made the claim, but that the claim itself is inaccurate. Repeatedly posting what is known to be inaccurate and exaggerating the statements of others to make it seem as though they endorse Bayard’s claim is deceitful. What else can it be called?

[Ray76]

Are you calling Madison, one of America's early legal experts, a liar?

Jeff Winston citing a James Madison quote:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3003325/posts?page=23#23

Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not the United States.

Cruz is naturalized.

[PA-RIVER]

Electing a president who has killed Americans in battle.

More likely than you think.

We are descendants of a predominate christian culture from Europe.

We were the melting pot. We now important from cultures that refuse to assimilate, and don’t give Rats butt about our culture and history. After we get significantly balkanized, I bet that scenario will happen. It may take a hundred years, but the day will arrive.

He’ll, we have a president now who refused to sign up for our draft, and cut his political teeth with a guy who is famous for bombing our country.

Its naive to think the communist party, Democrats, wouldn’t elect Putin Jr.

Cruz can run anyway, and will not win. Millions of voters who hate America will be voting again, as they did for Obama. The People who want to tear this country down for a welfare check now outnumber us. They would vote Putin Jr. In a heartbeat if he promised them an I-pad.

[PA-RIVER]

Hell, this country would elect Adolf Hitler himself if he won the Democrat party nomination.

Bottom line, citizenship and loyalty are no longer presidential requirement. Obama is just proof of that.

You are right, Cruz can run. And Democrats can pull A Joe Stalin out of Russian or Turkey or Cuba, and run him, and win.

[PA-RIVER]

Remember the story, a few years ago, about Turkish women flying here to give birth? All considered NBC, all Islamic, and qualified to lead our country in about 20 years from now. All they have to do is look sexy and promise an I-pad.

[PA-RIVER]

Screw the I-pad. I could see the Democrats electing a Turkish anchor baby if he just promised to kill republicans and share the loot.

Don’t laugh, I’m dead serious. I know Democrats/communists.

[PA-RIVER]

I had an Islamic Democrat, (first Generation born American), tell me that any doctor who retires early because of Obamacare should be hunted down and publicly executed.
I am not kidding.

These are Americans voting in our elections now. They would be happy to vote for a Musolini, Putin, or Hitler, Assad, raised in a foreign country with foreign citizenship. We have no way of stopping them now.

[gogeo]

Really?

[gogeo]

Always clear, you say...what about John McCain?

[GregNH]

Well to start with McCain was, [is], not eligible. What happened in '08 with SR511, that Obama co-sponsored, was to declare McCain an NBC. However that non-binding resolution has a few flaws. First it mentions

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

They are clearly referring to the 1790 Naturalization Act where it states;

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens;

This provision was removed fives later because congress could not make a law to define what was a natural law. This is why again when debating the 14th they made it clear what was a natural born Citizen in debate of the language.

The part they did get right was the two parent rule. But why would the Senators not make the leap to realize Obama's dilemma of a one parent Citizen? I submit a deal was made to ignore this fact and go along with the narrative of him being "native" born. SR511 also states that McCain was born on a military base.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.

He was born in Colon at the Colon Hospital which IIRC is about 40 miles from the military base, but either way it was not on a US military base.