#1 - His father being listed as belonging to the "African" race on the birth certificate provided by the Obama campaign.
#2 - This, printed in 1991:
Posted on 01/07/2016 3:49:02 AM PST by Perdogg
It's not going to go well for you if you don't recognize how your opponent is going to attack you.
Ignoring how the rats have attacked us has decimated us. It's what did in HW Bush. It did in W. It's effectively neutered the GOP AND the conservative movement.
I don't have an answer to my own question, but that doesn't mean it should be shrugged off so dismissively. The rats are a serious menace, they intend to milk this one, and use it to destroy our best conservative candidate. It's something to ponder (and take action), not something to ignore.
Insults and aggressive rudeness are his security blanket, crutch, and substitute for well reasoned, fact-based arguments. Without them he’d lose every exchange. He’ll never give them up.
A great start. Thank you.
I think all the bozos asking Cruz to “unseal his records” should post their social security numbers and medical records online.
What are they hiding?
I’m really disappointed in Levin. Putting everything together exposes the agenda behind the Article V thing & it’s not one that is good for the US.
That’s a shame, but thank God.
0bama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship.
nope, because it’s not at all part of my serious writing, interviews, books, appearances, speeches.....I like jerking you around.
Im not ignoring it, I’m just saying you are taking a GOP E strategy of ACCEPTING THE DAMNED PREMISE.
Please tell me Lake, when has that EVER EVER EVER EVER worked?
Answer: NEVER
Why not? His mother would still be a citizen of the US, until the US recognized her expatriation (if she ever did renounce US Citizenship).
-- Those records could easily be produced by Canada. --
First, those records would have to exist. If Ted's mother never applied for Canadian citizenship, there would be no records to produce.
Second, I don't know the degree of "public record" associated with naturalization proceedings - I would think these are public by nature, not private.
Tangentially related, I just ran into this, which I did not know ...
The first major exception was that "derivative" citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.)www.archives.gov/research/naturalization/naturalization.html
As far as application of statutory law goes, that "loss of citizenship by marriage to an alien" doesn't apply to Cruz. But, it does illustrate the complexities and contradictions that arise if one resorts to statutory law to determine who is a natural born citizen!
‘Can of worms that does NOT need to be opened. Period.’
What are your plans for stopping the Dems from opening this can at a more critical juncture further on down the road?
+1
Nope. You like lying about me. But I’m still willing to accept an apology. Better late than never.
But that's not the point.
Ignoring what the dems are going to do, and this IS one of their big future roll outs, is what gets us in trouble. HW ignored the "worst economy of the past fifty years". W ignored the blitzkrieg that the dems threw at him. McCain ignored the clear evil of the rats in their thirst for power. Romney ignored the so called war on women. The entire GOP has ignored what has gone down with this administration.
All of these are examples of ignoring what looks stupid. It's not accepting the premise to understand where they're going to attack you, it's ignoring what these very power thirsty people intend to use against us that so often blind sides us.
I think Trump’s whole point is not that Cruz isn’t natural born, but that Democrats will use this argument to gum up the transition (and possibly use the courts to try and stop him altogether).
When we’re talking about a Conservative birtherism will suddenly be cool again.
Prior to INTCA, a considerable number of children born to one alien parent and one U.S. citizen parent lost their citizenship as a result of their failure to satisfy the various retention requirements which were in effect from May 24, 1934 to October 10, 1978. INA S:324(d)(1) now provides that a person who was a U.S. citizen at birth who lost citizenship for failing to meet certain physical presence retention requirements in effect before October 10, 1978 will, upon taking the oath of allegiance, once again be considered be a U.S. citizen and have the status of a U.S. citizen by birth. Persons born prior to May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father and persons born on or after May 24, 1934 but before October 10, 1978 to a U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, who lost U.S. citizenship for failure to comply with the retention requirements may now regain citizenship in light of these amendments.//www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html
That's pretty amazing. If "citizen at birth" is the same as "natural born citizen," then the bolded statement above becomes ...
a person who was a natural born citizen who lost citizenship for failing to meet certain physical presence retention requirements in effect before October 10, 1978 will, upon taking the oath of allegiance, once again be considered be a natural born citizen
“Looking at it, it’s pretty clear that the rats genuinely intend to use it against him in courts all over the land if he wins the nomination.”
No, they won’t. Why? Because it will make them look like idiots....just like the birthers made Republicans look like idiots.
In any case, I’d welcome the fight to support one of the most conservative men who has run for office. And Trump brought it up because he wanted to attack Cruz and he has no ammo to do so.
If it went to court, it would be an easy victory. The weight of legal precedence is overwhelming, and the courts do NOT like to tell a people their vote doesn’t count unless it is VERY clear cut - age, for example.
“There are three basic types of U.S. citizenship. 1. Foremost, there is a natural born citizen, 2. then there is the much broader class of ordinary U.S. citizen, and 3. lastly there is a naturalized U.S. citizen.”
There is no legal basis for that statement. None.
There are two classes of citizens: natural born and naturalized, and the only difference between the two is holding the Presidency. One is either a NBC or a naturalized citizen. Period.
If you want to read a long but very good analysis, try this:
“The obvious reason was to insure that presidents’ loyalty to country would be unquestioned and as inviolate as humanly possible.”
So...Bill Ayers, the Rev Wright and Hillary Clinton’s “loyalty to country [is] unquestioned and as inviolate as humanly possible”?
“Insults and aggressive rudeness are his security blanket, crutch, and substitute for well reasoned, fact-based arguments. Without them he’d lose every exchange. He’ll never give them up.”
Never thought anyone would admit that about Trump!
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.