Posted on 08/21/2013 8:40:51 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Over the course of just two days, the Washington Post pounded its readers with 12 "birther" stories aimed at Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Headlines included, "Can Ted Cruz Run for President?", "Canadian Born Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate Amid Queries if He's Eligible for Presidential Run," "Ted Cruz: I am Not a Canadian," and "No, Ted Cruz "Birthers" are Not the Same as Obama Birthers":
**snip
Though there is no legal question as to Cruz's eligibility to run for president (Cruz was born an American citizen), the Post has spent the last 48 hours bedeviling the Hispanic senator with articles obviously meant to put him on defense and plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds.
The timing of the Post's assault is also curious. By accident or design, it dovetails perfectly with a widely criticized Daily Beast hit-piece on Cruz that also focuses on and questions Cruz's past and background.
Since being elected to the United States Senate in 2012, Cruz has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of President Obama and his signature healthcare plan, ObamaCare. The Washington Post has endorsed Obama for president, and frequently used its news and editorial pages to defend ObamaCare.
In the past, the Post has also launched crusades to destroy the careers of many Republicans, including US Senate candidate George Allen, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presidential candidate Rick Perry, and current gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- among others. The Post's modus operandi is similar to what Cruz is currently facing: The Post floods the zone with stories critical of the Republican in an effort to undermine their candidacy through character assassination.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I'm a fan of Mark Levin as well.
Many thanks for your post #100.
I hear this claim quite often. Yet no one has ever been able to cite any textbook anywhere that contains this definition of NBC. Leads me to believe that, no, you were *not* taught this in the 4th grade in 1957.
“Mark Levin commented last night on Hannity that Cruz is qualified. That’s good enough for me.”
Mark Levin cited a law that was repealed 5 years later. He was wrong.
Seems many birthers here are outraged over the support Cruz is receiving from conservatives. Outraged because they believe that supporting Cruz undermines their continually failing efforts to oust Obama on their specious claims of his ineligibility.
Personally, I wish they'd just STFU and go away. They can stomp their feet all they want, truth is they've never gotten anywhere in challenging Obama and should Cruz toss his hat into the ring, they're not going to get anywhere with him either. Cruz, like Obama, will face no serious legal obstacles regarding his eligibility.
Thanks though.
Guess what else?
I didn't even pick this up - but xzins did, and posted it in post #92.
Not only was Bayard's grandfather, Richard Bassett, United States Senator #1 and one of the 39 Delegates who Signed the Constitution, James Bayard's FATHER was known to his peers in Congress as "HIGH PRIEST OF THE CONSTITUTION."
And Bayard's exposition of the Constitution, of course, was vetted by the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor Kent, and other distinguished jurists of the early United States. Marshall corrected him on one other minor point, but not one person ever said he was wrong about natural born citizenship.
You believe what you want to believe.
Once again, worth mentioning:
Bayard’s exposition of the Constitution was vetted by a Who’s Who of America’s greatest early legal experts, including the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the famous Chancellor James Kent, and others.
Bayard himself was the grandson of Signer of the Constitution and United States Senator #1, Richard Bassett. And Bayard’s father also became a Senator, and was known to his peers as “High Priest of the Constitution.”
It’s strange that so many people say that they were taught this but no one has been able to come forward with a single textbook from primary school through college texts which states that two American citizen parents are required in order to qualify as a natural born citizen.
And of course in the eras prior to DNA evidence, there was no way to determine with absolute certainty who a person’s father really was. Husbands are not always fathers.
Even today there is speculation about who Obama’s “real” father might be and the two most mentioned names would both make him a natural born citizen (Frank Marshall Davis & Malcolm X, born in Kansas and Nebraska respectively).
It doesn’t take much political insight to see that liberals fear Cruz’s ability to energize and mobilize the conservative base. Liberals want another McCain, Romney moderate to be the nominee (enter Christie) so that the conservative base is de-energized, divided and apathetic.
Irrelevant.
The significance of the 1790 law is that it sheds light on what the Founders thought "natural born citizen" meant:
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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
The superseding 1795 act did not mention the term.
From a 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Service:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an alien required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.
So, it's obvious: Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley, and, yes, the (two-time) Won are all covered.
I thought the age of Barack’s mother was also a point of eligibility speculation. She was 18 at the time of birth.
Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942.
She was married February 2, 1961 (it was invalid because Mr. Obama was still married to another woman).
Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961.
She moved to Washington in September 1961 while her husband remained in Hawaii.
Did Barack H. Obama have Indonesian citizenship?
Perhaps soon, we can change it again so that people from all over the world, who just “think” they can do a good job will be eligible to run.
-PJ
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.