Has Breitbart Gone Full ‘Birther’ On Ted Cruz?

The Daily Caller ^ | January 14, 2016 | Rachel Stoltzfoos

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Breitbart News published at least 30 stories in the past week about Donald Trump's theory that Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for president because he's not a natural born citizen, moving into birther territory despite a previous categorical statement from a lead editor that Breitbart is "not a birther site."

"I think pretty categorically, I think I can talk for our editorial team and I can certainly talk for Andrew [Breitbart]," Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro said in 2013, responding to criticism over the site's coverage of President Barack Obama's birth certificate. "We're not a birther site."

A spokesman for Breitbart did not dispute Shapiro's statement, and defended the site's prolific coverage of Cruz's birth by saying it's a mainstream story. Kurt Bardella told The Daily Caller News Foundation it's "unfair and unusual" to single out Breitbart's coverage of what he called "one of the most dominant storylines of this year" that is of "tremendous interest to the Breitbart audience."

"Under this logic, every media outlet in America would be a 'birther site,'" he told TheDCNF.

Shapiro is an outspoken critic of the mainstream media and Republican willingness to play along with its power structure. "For years, I have been begging Republicans to stand up to the mainstream media," he said in a November Townhall post. "The left has dominated the media for as long as I've been alive."

A quick examination of a few mainstream media outlets' coverage of the story reveals Breitbart's devotion to Cruz's eligibility for the White House is equaled by The Washington Post, but far surpasses the appetite of outlets such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Politico.

"According to four sources with knowledge of the situation," Buzzfeed's McKay Coppins reported over the summer, "editors and writers at the outlet have privately complained since at least last year that the company's top management was allowing [Donald] Trump to turn Breitbart into his own fan website - using it to hype his political prospects and attack his enemies."

Trump, who is closely trailing Cruz in the Republican caucuses in Iowa, has been the lead spokesman for Cruz eligibility accusations. Following in the footsteps of Hillary Clinton, Trump also served as a prominent person questioning Obama's eligibility in 2011.

WaPo and Breitbart have been writing twice the number of stories on the subject of whether Cruz is natural born as those three outlets. Each of the two wrote at least 30 stories on it in the past week, compared to less than 15 stories each from TheNYT, WSJ and Politico.

WaPo's obsession with Cruz recently attracted public scrutiny when one of its cartoonists depicted his children as monkeys, but a comparison of Breitbart and WaPo's homepage's Tuesday shows Breitbart may be a bit more devoted to Trump's birther theory.

Here's Breitbart:

[SNIP]

And WaPo:

[SNIP]

Scroll down for screen shots.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Nobody reads lengthy spam like that.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Your information literally confirms what I said. Why must you be so completely stupid? Compare what I said to the timeline.

[New Jersey Realist]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I was called a doofus for questioning if Cruz mother gave up her American citizenship. I might have been wrong, but why do fellow FRiends have to resort to name calling just for a difference of opinion? Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a civil society for once?

I do think that NBC must be settled once and for all. Both my children were born in England while I was stationed there during my time in the Navy. Are they NBC’s? I don’t know. Their mother was an English citizen at the time. I’d like to think they are NBC but many, many people seem to think you must be born on U.S. soil as Madison and Jefferson pointed out (not in the Constitution however).

I believe my daughters are also English citizens with an English birth certificate. This is perplexing to me.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You stated in a comment about Trump’s political affiliation(s):

“Actually it was 3 years ago, and, before that, he refused to sign up for a party at all. I don’t blame him.”

I will again note: from entries on Trump’s Wiki page - excerpted and linked in post #60 above - over his entire adult life, Donald Trump has moved with ease from party, to party to party.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Donald Trump has moved with ease from party, to party to party.

What is your point? The charge was that Trump was a Democrat 2 years ago. He switched to Republican 3 years ago. Was an independent before that for about a year. Then was a Republican down to 2009.

[Daveinyork]

In Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal,” he admitted that he had a negative net worth in the early 1990’s. He related remarking to Marla that a homeless person was richer than he was.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Imagine Churchill as president.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

Donald Trump

2015

Born Donald John Trump
June 14, 1946 (age 69)
Queens, New York City

Political party:

Republican (2012-present; 2009-11; 1987-99)

Previous affiliations:

Independent (2011-12)

Democratic (2001-09; before 1987)

Reform (1999-2001)

[Uncle Sham]

This question is clearly addressed if you compare the language used in the Naturalization Act of 1790 with the language used in the Naturalization Act of 1795. Someone born to US citizens outside of United States jurisdiction is described as a natural born citizen in the Act of 1790. This language was changed when they repealed this Act in 1795 to describe this same person as simply a citizen.

Essentially what we have here is a definition established by statute of what a natural born citizen WAS during a five year period, then what a natural born citizen is NOT after the 1795 repeal. Since Cruz birth fits the conditions of being born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. according to the Act of 1795 he can only be classified as a citizen, not a natural born citizen.

Many who argue that Cruz is eligible like to quote the language from the Naturalization Act of 1790 as their justification. Doing so without acknowledging that this language was changed by the Act of 1795 is dishonest. That those who passed both of these acts were among the founders indicates that they either corrected an error in the Act of 1790 or changed their minds about what it resulted in. After 1795, someone born outside of the jurisdiction of the United States was NOT a natural born citizen.

[GrouchoTex]

I Think Breibart is posting the various articles as a way of trying to stay neutral, above board.
I think they would be either Cruz or Trump supporters, if it came down to it. Or should I say, they would support the most conservative candidate who earns the nomination.
Trump and Cruz supporters both have accused them of being in the tank, one way or another.
I think they lean Cruz, but I don’t believe they are trying to shill for either.

[Godebert]

You are wrong. I’ve had numerous replies thanking me for posting the information which the media and the uni-party refuses to let see the light of day.

[Jarhead9297]

Whenever he speaks it sounds like I’m listening to an elementary student who cannot form a complete thought. Reading this as well as listening to him sometimes makes my ears bleed.

[libbylu]

DC brought up my question about breitbart. It’s a trump with a random article about another candidate here and there.

[Yosemitest]

"However, they are not a "natural born citizen" because they have to be born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens."

WRONG !
Article I, Section 8 of the new Constitution
giving Congress the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ...
throughout the United States."DISPUTES your LIE !

[Yosemitest]

You're still quoting LIAR Mario Apuzzo !

"there are certainly many extremely prominent scholars who state
that natural born means both parents must be American Citizens
as stated in Vattel's Law of Nations."

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

So your statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[jonrick46]

Congress has the authority “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . .” That is correct. However, “naturalization” has to do with who can be a citizen. They cannot change the meaning of the term, “natural born citizen.” You can be a citizen, but you may not be a “natural born citizen.” That status requires that you be born in the U.S. to citizen parents, a man and a woman. Those who can’t make that distinction, fail to know history during the time of the framing of the Constitution.

[Godebert]

The folks are catching on to you.

[Yosemitest]

""

They cannot change the meaning of the term, "natural born citizen." You have the WRONG comprehension of the term, and FROM WHERE out was derived !

You have no comprehension of the word "Naturalization", or the laws defining it.
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

It was defined for the United States, BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS !
And it was done AS PRESCRIBED IN Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which list the powers given to Congress.
The third item on the list is the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
A year after the Constitution was adopted, Congress passed the first law that established a "uniform rule of naturalization": The Act of March 26, 1790.
The act was just the first in a series of laws addressing the issue of naturalization, ...

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law. ...
In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again. ...
After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65) that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries, especially Asian countries,
but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.



The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United 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: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[Yosemitest]

They're starting to UNDERSTAND OUR United States CONSTITUTION, and they're starting to REJECT YOUR LIES !