Lake, I'd like you to re-read what you just posted and notice that the first thing you do, is berate and condemn the 'other' side for not seeing things your way.
Slow down a bit, mate. You're talking to your brothers and sisters here. I know we don't all agree on this issue, but let's just keep talking until we find enough points that we do agree on, so that we all remain friends.
We're gonna need each other more than ever soon.
The main idea being, where most legal scholars who have studied the issue (both left and right) disagree with those who claim Cruz is ineligible, here they are INSISTIMG their dubious claims of ineligibility are ABSOLUTELY AND UNERRINGLY true base on internet ramblings rather than precedent of case law. It's this willingness to take out one of our finest potential candidates over these dubious claims I find so niggling.
It's this willingness to participate with the democrat/media complex in taking him out that is doubly disturbing.
As to "condemning and berating", using the words niggling and Pharisaical is hardly overwhelming Alinsky methodology; compared to what I've seen thrown at the anti-birthers it's mild milque toast.
Perhaps if those who are on the other side would care to deal genuinely and honestly with the main points summarized in post 105, those arguments backing his eligibility, I might feel better about them.