[DiogenesLamp]

Because Cruz does not fit the original and continuing, at least until the last dozen years, the definition of “natural born.” He is, however, eligibble as that clause of the Constitution has been repealed by the Democrat Party and by Conservatives who believe that it doesn’t apply to them.I am not being bitteror satirical. That is just how it is. Cruz and Walker are the two stars of the Conservativism.

And this is how I see it as well. However, I wouldn't put it past the legal system to let Obama skate, and then hold Cruz to a much more difficult standard.

You know the media will certainly be spreading doubt as to his eligibility.

[Nero Germanicus]

The liberal media has been defending Cruz’s eligibility because it justifies Obama.
For example: “Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-born-in-canada-and-still-become-president-of-the-us/275469/

“Top lawyers: ‘No question’ Canada-born Cruz eligible for presidency”
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/16/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen-birthers/

The anti-birther blogs and web sites are positively giddy about Cruz, Rubio and others because they see the eligibility of those Republican candidates as justifying their position on Obama AND dividing conservatives politically.
They see themselves getting a “two for one.”
The anti-Obama blog “The Birther Report” is vehement in its opposition to Cruz’s eligibility.

[Political Junkie Too]

I am of the camp that demands the narrowest, tightest requirements on presidential candidates. Some say it's not fair that a child was born elsewhere through no fault of their own, others ask about the adopted or orphaned with no knowledge of their parents.

I say that they are the unfortunate loser of that particular life lottery.

Ted Cruz would make a great Attorney General in someone else's Cabinet.

-PJ