Washington Post Hits Ted Cruz With 12 'Birther' Stories In Two Days

Breitbart ^ | 8/21/13 | John Nolte

[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.

[FreeReign]

My point is, saying that one's fourth grade teacher told them what NBC means, doesn't cut it as a valid supporting argument.

That's why I put the words "in 4th grade" in sneer quotes when describing the extra Constitutional citations that are needed (and lacking in fourth grade) to make a valid argument.

Then along you come and unknowingly make my point.

[xzins]

Sort of neat info from the website where Bayard's book, Brief Exposition Constitution, is found. It is apparently a copy from the John Adams Library:

John Adams Library copy is unlikely to have belonged to President John Adams

John Adams Library copy has bookplate: John Adams Library, in the Custody of the Boston Public Library

John Adams Library copy inscribed on first leaf: "Hon. John Q. Adams with the respects of the author."

[txhurl]

Very glad Ted brought out all the sleeper trolls this early in the cycle. Now if FR only had an ‘ignore’ button.

[FreeReign]

It was a patriarchal era. The citizenship of females was not an issue. They went where their husbands told them to go. Children as well did what the father directed. A father could be a citizen, and it would be irrelevant about the mother.

So then a child of a citizen father during that era would always be NBC.

Yet some would deny that same NBC link today.

[xzins]

So then a child of a citizen father during that era would always be NBC

That is exactly what the 1790 law says.

And the 1795 law says that the citizenship DESCENDS to the child from the father BY RIGHT.

[Sun]

Thanks for Post 105. Do you have a year for that?

[Brown Deer]

Then along you come and unknowingly make my point.

I didn't make your point at all. You accused the FReeper of lying by calling it a "supposed" lesson. That's what most children were taught in school, but apparently you must have ditched that class.

[xzins]

1833.

“A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States : with an appendix, containing the Declaration of independence and the Articles of confederation. And a copius index (1833)”

[BigGuy22]

“That’s what most children were taught in school...”
__

You know, you might have more success convincing people of that if you could come up with a few textbooks or comparable sources that said it.

It would help to counter the fact that there is a long list of sources that say just the opposite.

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html

Of course, these are not generally authoritative sources, like court decisions or pieces of legislation. But the list purports to convey an understanding of what prevailing thought on the subject has been, and it would help if you had a comparable list to counterbalance it.

[Sun]

Thanks very much! So interesting to learn the things I didn’t learn (or remember) in school.

[Jeff Winston]

IT WAS NEVER PLACED BEFORE THE DELEGATES OF THE CONSITUTIONAL CONVENTION AT ALL.

You have absolutely no evidence for this claim.

Of course I do, genius, or I wouldn't have made it.

Unlike you.

The members of the Constitutional Convention kept records. There were both official records and unofficial records kept by various Delegates, including James Madison.

Over 100 years ago, Professor Max Farrand compiled the records of the Convention into 4 volumes. There are more than 2,000 pages of records from the Constitutional Convention.

Hamilton did make a presentation of sorts to the other delegates, fairly early in the game.

But even this presentation was not put formally before the Convention for their approval. He simply read an outline of his working plan, for the purpose of throwing out some of his ideas.

And that plan did NOT contain any birth qualification whatsoever for President.

His "born a Citizen" wording appears ONLY in a paper he gave to James Madison AFTER THE CONVENTION WAS OVER.

And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the delegates "rejected" Hamilton's "born a Citizen" wording, or that they saw any difference in meaning at all between the words "born a Citizen" and the words "a natural born Citizen."

Nor is there any statement whatsoever from the 2,000-plus pages of Constitutional Convention documentation, any Founding Father, any historical writer, or any legal expert in history that anybody found any particular difference between the words "born a Citizen" and "a natural born Citizen."

Gee. Don't you think if there was a difference, somebody would've commented on it?

Don't you think that if the delegates had "rejected Hamilton's proposal," SOMEBODY would've commented on it?

Of course they would have.

MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND PAGES OF NOTES AND DOCUMENTS FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AND NOT ONE PERSON COMMENTS, "HEY, WE THOUGHT HAMILTON'S PROPOSAL WAS TOO 'LENIENT,' SO WE CHANGED THE WORDING."

Hamilton's "proposal" THAT WAS NEVER EVEN PRESENTED, AS FAR AS ANYBODY CAN TELL.

Farrand, who read every single damn note of the records, comments that Hamilton's document "was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton."

No, the REALITY is that only two men proposed a birth qualification for President.

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.

And the two were so close that they collaborated on the crucial Federalist Papers after the Convention.

One said "born a Citizen," the other said "natural born Citizen." Maybe "natural born Citizen" had a nicer ring to it. I don't know.

But the thing I do know is that not one of the Founders or Framers or any other early US legal experts EVER said that "natural born Citizen" was anything more than "born a Citizen."

They just didn't.

And you would know that if you actually read HISTORY, and LAW, and the CONSTITUTION, instead of just reading the stupid opinion of some pathetically uninformed birther who flatters himself that he knows what he's talking about, when in reality he doesn't have a clue.

[FreeReign]

You accused the FReeper of lying by calling it a "supposed" lesson.

I did no such thing. To "suppose" something is to assume that something is true without positive knowledge.

But now you've falsely accused me.

And you did make my point.

[Jeff Winston]

Every proposal was the opinion of its author.

That's true, Ray, but some were ONLY the opinions of their authors.

Others were considered, debated and adopted by the members of the Convention, and became also the opinions of the Convention.

[Jeff Winston]

Bottom line, Shark:

If Cruz runs for POTUS in the Republican party, he will utterly destroy both that Party and the conservatives that continue to cling to it.

Hard to argue with that.

Let's get a SAFE candidate. Hey, I know. How about John McCain?

Or Mitt Romney. What about Romney? He's got nice hair.

[FreeReign]

So then a child of a citizen father during that era would always be NBC.

That is exactly what the 1790 law says. And the 1795 law says that the citizenship DESCENDS to the child from the father BY RIGHT.

Yup. As I understand it the 1790 law simply shows us the definition at that time of a NBC.

[Jeff Winston]

Here's a link to Hamilton's paper as it appears in the Farrand's Records, with his comments.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh... and once again, as your own source notes: Greisser’s father was basically a tourist in the US, or on a temporary trade mission. The younger Bayard’s position was that the US-born child of a German citizen WHO HAD HIS DOMICILE IN GERMANY was not a US citizen.

No Jeff. You don't get to lie about your firmly held position. You have never cut out a niche for "birth tourism." Your theory doesn't ALLOW such deviations from dogma. The Gospel of Natural Born according to JEFF WINSTON is that ANYONE BORN HERE IS A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN."

Once more, you twist and dodge like a snake, but you are nailed like a bug in an Entomology display.

(Jeff is the big stinkbug in the middle.)

There are TWO aspects of this which contradict your long held Dogma.

1. Your BORN HERE theory allows no exceptions and never did. English Law doesn't recognize the "tourism" exception. You've said over and over and over again that anyone BORN HERE is a "natural born citizen." Attempts to show you that you were wrong were met with "EVERY AUTHORITY IN THE KNOWN GALAXY AGREES WITH ME!" You don't get to back away from this position now that it has been shown to be utterly false. You OWN it!

2. Barack Obama, whose legitimacy you CONSTANTLY DEFENDED is one of these children of a "birth tourist" which you are now dishonestly claiming is your new, better informed position.

See this guy?

Temp Student here for a visit. NOT PERMANENT RESIDENT. DOMICILE IS IN KENYA. But what has Jeffery been doing for years? "OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HERE !"

So which is it Jeff? Do you stick by the lies you've been telling for years, or do you go with the New Lie you've cooked up to cover your no longer supportable claim?

Inquiring minds want to Know Jeff.

[DiogenesLamp]

ou have absolutely no evidence for this claim.

Of course I do, genius, or I wouldn't have made it.

Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff... We know you. You've never needed evidence to make wild claims. You just do it. As a matter of fact, we know you have an aversion to evidence, because every time we show you some, you shriek like a little girl and run away in horror!

Jeff screaming and running like a little girl depicted below.

Here some evidence. We already know you don't like it.

Actual evidence is like Kryptonite to you.

[little jeremiah]

The screaming that Cruz is a NBC from freepers is incredibly revolting. Even people I thought were rational have taken up the chorus. Clueless.

Cruz is even LESS of a NBC than Obastard, that is if 0bastard’s fictional life story were true.

I think total collapse is inevitable by seeing the idiocy and willful ignorance about this topic on FR. What to speak of elsewhere.

[Plummz]

All you’ve tried to prove is that Hamilton’s idea was so hare-brained that it didn’t even merit a “formal” presentation. Thus, it was rightly rejected. That you would try to resurrect this rejected idea outside of the due process of Constitutional amendment is repugnant and anti-American.