Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyX
Ted Cruz embarrassed himself by getting caught in his lies, claiming the natural born citizen controversy was required the parents of a natural born citizen to also be natural born citizens.

Save your lies for someone that hasn't followed this. Cruz said that some of the more extreme birthers think that, not that he does.

54 posted on 01/27/2016 1:52:08 AM PST by LowOiL ("Let us do evil that good may come"? ....condemnation is just - Romans 3:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: LowOiL

‘Cruz said that some of the more extreme birthers think that, not that he does.’

That is not true. No one believes this because it is an impossibility. After the debate I asked Cruz supporters to provide examples of birthers who believe this. None could. Not only that, but what IF you could find some halfwit with an IQ of 80 who believes it? So what??? You can find halfwits who believe a lot of nonsensical, impossible things. What does that prove? That some people have well below average IQ?

It was a strawman on Cruz’ part. The EXACT type of strawman Obama depends on. “Some say X,” Obama drones—when in reality nobody in the world says X. It’s just Obama’s mentally deficient way of making a stupid point no intelligent person would be caught dead making to begin with.

In Cruz’ case, he wanted to boorishly, nastily and illogically drag Trump’s mother into it. So he created a class of birthers that doesn’t exist and used it to try to get a rise out of Trump. And failed.

Debate-tactic-wise, it was stupid off the charts.


132 posted on 01/27/2016 4:19:16 AM PST by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: LowOiL

“Save your lies for someone that hasn’t followed this. Cruz said that some of the more extreme birthers think that, not that he does.”

You have now falsely accused me of stating lies. You also claim to be someone “that hasn’t followed this....” Let us then look at the facts to see who is using lies. The following is the statement of Ted Cruz I referred to when I said he got caught telling lies in the debate:

[Quote, Ted Cruz]
I would note the birther theories that Donald has been relying on some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil, under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, and interestingly enough Donald J. Trump would be disqualified, because, because Donald’s mother was born in Scotland, she was naturalized....
[Unquote]

First, Ted Cruz saw fit to insult his critics with a dismissive and ridiculing usage of the “birther” terminology; instead of answering his critics as if they were sincere and reasonable people.

Second, Ted Cruz stated “the birther theories...insist that you must...have two parents born on U.S. soil....” That statement by Ted Cruz is a lie, an impossible lie, and he is obligated by his oath as an officer of the court to know and respect the actual definition used by the Supreme court of the United States cited by those critics of Ted Cruz.

For example, one of the many sources his critics are using is the Supreme court decision: United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)...”At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Nowhere in that definition of a natural born citizen used by the critics of Cruz does the Supreme Court of the United Sates say a natural born citizen must have “two parents born on U.S. soil....” The Supreme Court decision only says “parents who were its citizens”, which makes no distinction between natural born citizen parents or naturalized citizen parents. The critics of Ted Cruz cited this Supreme Court decision when they challenged his eligibility, so Ted Cruz was obligated to refrain from denying the existence of that citation by misrepresenting what it says with his lie claiming two parents had to be born on U.S. soil.

Next, the Supreme Court of the United States said: The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)...Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Nowhere in that definition of a natural born citizen used by the critics of Cruz does the Supreme Court of the United Sates say a natural born citizen must have “two parents born on U.S. soil....” The Supreme Court decision only says “those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”; and not “two parents born on U.S. soil....” as claimed by Ted Cruz in the debate.

Next, the Supreme Court of the United States said: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)...The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Nowhere in that definition of a natural born citizen used by the critics of Cruz does the Supreme Court of the United Sates say a natural born citizen must have “two parents born on U.S. soil....” The Supreme Court decision only says “Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen”; and not “two parents born on U.S. soil....” as claimed by Ted Cruz in the debate.

Even more to the point is the Supreme Court decision: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),...was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen....”

Nowhere in that definition of a natural born citizen used by the critics of Cruz does the Supreme Court of the United Sates say a natural born citizen must have “two parents born on U.S. soil....” On the contrary, the Supreme Court decision only says in no uncertain terms the exact opposite of Ted Cruz’s statement, “a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen....”

These above sources are evidence far beyond any reasonable or shadow of a doubt that the citations of case law from the Supreme Court of the United States being used by the critics who Ted Cruz accuses of being “more extreme birthers” do not require the parents of a natural born citizen to be born on U.S. soil as false stated by Ted Cruz in the debate. Given the fact Senator Ted Cruz is an attorney at law and an officer of the Supreme Court of the United States, he was obligated to know and respect this case law; yet he failed to do so which qualifies as a lie.

Additionally, I note the fact you made no effort whatsoever to respond to the fact it is an impossibility for the parents of a natural born citizen to always be natural born citizens themselves or to “to be born on U.S. soil” in an unbroken succession back to the first generation. At some point in time the parents had to have been born not on U.S. soil and not as natural born citizens of the U.S. If you want to deny this fact, then you only have need to diagram out how its is even possible.

Ted Cruz also lied about Donald C. Trump’s mother and her status as a naturalized U.S. citizen making him ineligible under the definition of the natural born citizen clause we are using to challenge the eligibility of the Canadian born Ted Cruz. This fact is proven by Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),...”was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen....”

Likewise, your accusation against me saying I wrote lies is proven to be false and a lie by the above evidence from the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States. So, are you now going to deny the express words of the Supreme Court of the United States and call it a liar too, or will you admit Ted Cruz lied in the debate?


153 posted on 01/27/2016 5:08:45 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson