Born in the USA: The Trump-Cruz Birther Battle Rages On

RUSH: In Reno Donald Trump with a rally on Sunday afternoon. Now, Trump has, for five days running now, been toying with this idea that Ted Cruz has a citizenship problem. And it's understandable. Cruz is leading in Iowa. Trump wants to win Iowa. Trump has had some success going after Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility and so forth. It could be argued that's what put Trump on the political map, in fact.

So now Trump has focused on Ted Cruz. All of the official recognition is in and there's no question. Ted Cruz is a United States citizen, up, down, sideways, inside out. There's no question there. He's a total, 100% American citizen, and it's not a matter of dispute. Now, that doesn't mean the Democrat Party won't sue if Cruz is elected president. They will sue, just like people sued Obama to find out the truth about his birth certificate. So Trump is running around saying: do we want that distraction? Do we want to nominate somebody who's gonna end up being the subject of a lawsuit? "So, Cruz is a problem. And here's the problem: It's called uncertainty. It's called you just don't know."

Trump said yesterday that "'this is not a settled matter' and that he's not the only one raising questions. He said if Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, the Democrats could challenge his eligibility in lawsuits that could drag on for years. 'Does anyone know more about litigation than Trump?'" Trump asked. And, believe me, nobody does. Trump is the king of litigation. "Okay? I know a lot. I'm like a PhD in litigation." And then he led his audience in a chant. He let the audience weigh in at the rally yesterday afternoon. He shouted, "Is he a natural born citizen?" It was in a ballroom at some Reno hotel. And members of Trump's crowd shouted back, "No." And then Trump said, "I don't know. Honestly, we don't know. Who the hell knows? We have to find out." And then you know what the song Trump played to open his rally was? (laughing) Bruce Springsteen, Born in the USA.

Now, it's funny, I'll grant you, but this, you know, Born in the USA is a leftist anthem. Actually it isn't, but the way it has been used up to now in pop culture is it's a song that the left uses to criticize America in many ways. That's kind of the irony of it. I've always found it kind of curious. They think Springsteen's song, it's about a vet that comes back and is royally dumped on, and mistreated and America's at fault and so forth. So that's the anthem and Trump using it borders on Trump going after Cruz again from the left. But there's nothing here. I mean, there's no question about Cruz's citizenship.

But Trump's right, the Democrats will file lawsuits. They're still litigating Florida and the recount in 2001. They'll probably file lawsuits if Trump wins over hairstyles or some such thing. But Trump's not letting this go, and I think the reason is he's bothered by Cruz's resiliency in Iowa, which takes us back to the audio sound bites. We're up here to number two. And this happened this morning on CNN's New Day. The cohost Chris Cuomo speaking to Errol Louis, who is a host on New York 1, Inside City Hall. And they had this little chat about evangelicals and the Hawkeye Cauci and Trump and the power structure and what really makes it all happen there.

CUOMO: How confusing is it for these voters, the evangelical types, but just really mainstream conservatives in Iowa to have the radio people, these demigods for them saying don't listen to this stuff about Cruz, this is crazy, Trump's way off. Meanwhile, at the same time, they have all this enthusiasm for Trump. I mean, there's a real clash of the titans.

LOUIS: Trump is their guy because they think he's a warrior who can go in there and set things right. And that doesn't mean they're not evangelical, and it doesn't mean that they're overlooking the fact that he, has one author put it, almost runs the table on the seven deadly sins, you know, wrath and all this. But he is somebody who they think can do something that they want done, which is to stop a process of erosion and of slippage and of losing their position in the country and in the world.

RUSH: And Chris Cuomo frustrated there because his guest did not pick up on the real meat of his question, and that's who is responsible for all this, and that's the radio people, these demigods, the talk radio people, these demigods. No wonder these people in Iowa are confused. These people on the radio have way, way too much influence. Same network, CNN this morning, Alisyn Camerota, speaking with the senior political editor of the Daily Beast, her name is Jackie Kucinich, about the presidential primary, the battle between Trump and Cruz. And Alisyn Camerota said, "Trump has been raising questions about Cruz's eligibility to be president. And so far, all Cruz has done in response is put out a video of Fonzie and trying to signify Trump has jumped the shark. Does Cruz need to do more than that?"

KUCINICH: Trump does have to be careful when he's going after Ted Cruz. You remember a couple months back it actually backfired on Trump because of those talk radio guys. They started to really not like how Trump was going after Cruz, someone who has really pushed the conservative message during his day job in Washington. So while Trump keeps on hinting and putting this out there, he does need to be careful with some of those voters who really do like Ted Cruz, not to overplay his hand.

RUSH: Well, that's the way Trump's handling it, he's saying, "Hey, we got a problem. I don't know, we might have a problem, could be a lawsuit problem. I'm the king of litigation. I know how it all works. I like Ted Cruz, good guy, but we could have a problem, I don't know. What do you think? Is Ted Cruz naturally born?" "No." "Well, it's a possibility. We don't know." Here comes Springsteen singing Born in the USA. So it's a bunch of subliminalty going on here. Trump is saying it without saying it because, according to the Jackie Kucinich, he's gotta be afraid of these talk guys. Trump's gotta be very, very careful, 'cause it backfired, those talk radio guys, she said.

Now we move on to CNN's Reliable Sources. This is their version of the media navel-gazing. This is the show where the media analyzes itself and supposedly calls out its problems or sings its own praises. Michael Harrison is the guest. He's the publisher and editor of Talkers magazine. Brian Stelter, the host, says, "Do you credit talk radio with Donald Trump's success in the past six, seven --" Now, that question, let me explain the question. People on the left -- and remember, I made a point of this last week. You have to understand the way these questions are asked and where they come from, and it's not just the Democrats. The Republicans are the same way.

When it comes to you, people they think are considered to be average, ordinary Americans, you must understand one thing: They do not believe you are capable of independent thought. Whatever you think, if it goes against what they want to believe, if you happen to support things they don't think should be, if you believe things they don't think should be, then somebody's to blame for making them think that, for making you think that, and it's always been me.

Talk radio has always been blamed for what you do and what you think. And Brian Stelter (obviously schooled in this art) thinks the same thing, that you are incapable making up your own mind about anything. You're incapable, otherwise you'd be a good liberal. You'd be a good liberal and willingly turn over your life to the government. You don't want to do that. You want to turn your life over to talk radio. Therefore, you are mentally disabled. You are incompetent; you're incapable.

And that's where the question comes from. Here's the question he asks Michael Harrison. "Do you credit talk radio with Trump's success?" So it couldn't be anything to do with Trump, see? It couldn't be that you independently and on your own like Trump. No, no! It has to be that you're being brainwashed. It has to be that you are being propagandized by talk radio. Here's Michael Harrison again, the editor/publisher of Talkers magazine. Here's his answer...

HARRISON: Absolutely not. Talk radio is just one of many media that is playing into Donald Trump's success. Donald Trump was created by Donald Trump, and Donald Trump's media success was created by NBC and The Apprentice. He's a shock jock that is now running for president.

RUSH: Whoa! Donald Trump is "a shock jock." Do you know what he's saying? He's saying, "Donald Trump is talk radio," not that talk radio is Donald Trump. But Michael Harrison's a believer in talk radio. He's not a critic. Well, I mean, he's a critic in the sense he likes certain things, but he's not a universal critic of the format. He believes in it deeply and admires it. And so here's Stelter sitting there at CNN (impression), "So on are the talk radio guys...?" No, Brian, actually you are. NBC and The Apprentice, your favorite networks, they're the ones that gave Trump the media exposure. Don't blame it on our talk radio guys. They're just capitalizing on it.

STELTER: You don't think that Rush Limbaugh's show and others, they represent and they reflect the anger in the country that Donald Trump has taken advantage of?

HARRISON: There's anger in a lot of places. I think liberal talk radio has created Bernie Sanders, if you want to look at it that way.

STELTER: That's interesting! But liberal talk radio is so much less influential than conservative talk radio. You know that Rush is number one.

HARRISON: Yes, but I think that we give far too much credit to all of talk radio for creating the situation, that talk radio really -- very intelligently like the rest of the strategic media -- is reflecting. I wouldn't be so quick to say that conservative talk radio is creating the hate and anger that, uhh, Donald Trump is tapping into.

RUSH: I don't know about hate, but, look, this came up last week. Why shouldn't people be mad at what's going on to this country? Why shouldn't people be angry at what's being done to this country? Anger is called for! Anger is perfectly legitimate! But the reason people are angry is not because talk radio or Trump is making them angry. They're angry at Obama! They're angry at the Democrat Party, the Republican establishment. They're angry at what? At what liberalism and its implementers are doing to this country. Trump's tapping into something that already existed. But listen to little Brian here.

(impression) "Wait a minute! You don't think Rush Limbaugh...? You don't think Rush Limbaugh is reflecting the anger and Donald Trump is reflecting the anger in this country? You don't think Rush Limbaugh's responsible for it?" is essentially his question. "You don't think Rush Limbaugh's...?" "Well, liberal talk radio's hate..." "Oh, come on," Brian said. "Liberal talk radio doesn't have any influence at all." He's right about that. "But I don't think Rush Limbaugh's responsible..." See, they believe -- and I guess saying they really believe that when things are not going their way and people are mad at them, it's only 'cause you're too stupid to know and you've been told to be mad at 'em by me. Anyway, good job by Michael Harrison here.

RUSH: Back to the phones. This is John in Redding, California. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Yes! You being the tenured professor at the Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies have taught us students out here that words mean things.

CALLER: That being said, I have looked at the every Naturalization Act from 1795 --

CALLER: -- to 2016, and I do not find the words "natural born citizen" in any statute. So then how is it that Cruz, being a n-naturalized citizen (sic)...? How is he a natural born citizen?

RUSH: You have to go back. This is why the original intent of the Founders is so important when talking about the Constitution. Back in the days the Constitution was written --

RUSH: -- in Article 2, "natural born citizen" was a derivative of "natural born subject."

CALLER: Ehhh, I believe that the Founders used the (unintelligible) more than they did Blackstone or somebody along those lines, which he stated "born in country to citizen parents" is a "natural born citizen."

RUSH: Well, it has been debated. Words have been written. There have been lawsuits over this. I mentioned last week, I saw a blog post of 75,0
00 words -- some legal website with 75,000 words -- of opinion on this, because it was not defined in the Constitution. The best anybody's been able to do is go look at what is meant --

CALLER: The Supreme Court has weighed in in Minor v. Happersett. Very clear, very clear on what the definition is.

CALLER: That was a 9-0 decision by the court, and the chief justice wrote the opinion.

RUSH: Are you telling me the Supreme Court has opined in such a way that Cruz is not a legal citizen?

RUSH: You're not right. I don't care what, you're not right. You can sit there all day long and try to tell us that Ted Cruz is not a citizen, and you're wrong. I don't care what you're citing or sourcing. The Supreme Court... If it were true, Cruz would be out. There are legal opinions all over the place quite to the contrary on this. (sigh) I endeavored to answer the question honestly, and the moment I got the first sentence of my heartfelt, honestly intended answer, bam! Here came the, "You don't know what you're talking about, Blackstone v. The Town." I'm saying to myself, what the hell is Blackstone v. The Town? Natural-born subject, Founders, British law at the time. It's settled. Cruz's mother was a citizen. Therefore he is. Deal with it.

RUSH: Well, we have a new poll out from Quinnipiac, a poll that many consider to be credible, and in this poll, Donald Trump has retaken the lead in Iowa by two points over Ted Cruz. The margin of error here is four points, so it's essentially a tie. Trump leads the Republican field in Iowa, according to the Quinnipiac poll just out, 31, Cruz has 29. But again that lead is within the four-point margin of error.

Now, in the same poll voters view Ted Cruz more favorably than they do Trump, however, and more are open to the possibility of voting for him. One of the things that the powers that be running around, the way the establishment's dealing with Trump now, "Okay, yeah," they're admitting, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's got big crowds, yeah, yeah, yeah, and he's got a lot of polling support." But, they ask, how many of his supporters are actually gonna show up and vote?

So now the latest grasp the establishment's taking is taking is that, yeah, Trump's got a lot of supporters, but we don't think very many of them will actually show up and vote. They just like to go to his rallies and be entertained. But as far as actually registering and voting, nah, ain't gonna happen.

And then there's this. The Republican establishment is also trying to comfort itself by telling themselves that Trump has no ground game anywhere. Meaning, he doesn't have armies of volunteers in various places in New Hampshire and Iowa working the phones and pounding the pavement and knocking on doors and trying to get out the vote. What they're saying is Trump flies in, he lands, his entourage goes from the airport to the venue where he's speaking, he does his little appearance, he heads back to the airport and leaves. He's got no ground game. He has no prayer. There's no mechanism here to help these people get up and actually go out and vote.

This is what the establishment's telling themselves. So they're gonna look at this Quinnipiac poll and they're gonna be enthused, they're gonna be encouraged because the Quinnipiac poll says that Cruz is viewed more favorably than Trump and that more of his supporters claim that they're gonna vote than Trump supporters do. It's phrased "more are open to the possibility of voting for him according to the new findings. This is only the third poll of the last 11 in Iowa in which Trump has led. Other recent polls have shown Ted Cruz in first place."

So I tell you what's gonna happen with this. Trump is gonna think that what has bumped him back into the lead here is focusing on Cruz's citizenship, his eligibility. So you can expect Trump to double down on this now, my guess, anyway. 'Cause that's what they're gonna think has resulted in the change. So just be prepared, keep a sharp eye. That's probably what Trump's gonna do. And then all eyes will be on Cruz to see how he plans to deal with it.

RUSH: CNN Inside Politics. Are we still here with little Brian? No, this is John King's show, talking with senior political reporter Manu Raju about the presidential primary. He said, "Ted Cruz starting to move in Iowa. We talked about this for a while. But number two, if you're Trump, you're close enough still, and Quinnipiac now. Trump's back up by two there. The idea's to keep Cruz from growing. Is Trump looking for a win or just to keep it close in Iowa?"

RAJU: Trump has finally found something to go after Ted Cruz. Remember, he tried to, you know, raise questions about his being evangelical. "There are not many evangelicans (sic) who came from Cuba." Kind of a questionable attack. He also said that he acted kind of crazy in the Senate. And when he did that, he got blowback --

RAJU: Yeah! He got blowback from conservative talk radio. Rush Limbaugh said, "What are you doing? Of course, that's great! He should be doing that."

RAJU: And now he finally on the ethanol and the Canada thing, he's had some traction. I'm sure he'll continue to push that.

RUSH: So Trump has to try to attack Cruz without drawing blowback from me. That's the upshot here. Because, you see, you people? You're too stupid to be able to understand what Trump is saying if you're a Cruz supporter. You need me to tell you when you should get mad at Trump. And Trump also needs me to tell him when he should stop doing what he's doing. That's what these people think. It's amazing what I control. Just amazing. Why doesn't Sean Penn want to interview me?

the children of citizens of the United States

I have seen Freeper posts alleging that since "citizens" is plural, the phrase should be interpreted to mean that BOTH parents must be citizens. This seems to me to be incorrect, since a single citizen parent can convey citizenship to his or her child. "Citizens" just defines the group to which at least one parent must belong.

Right?

Gotta think that Constitutional expert Cruz, has the facts on his side with this issue.

Yes, he has the facts.
Having the facts is exactly why he refers to NBC as “1 citizen parent”, “his mother was a citizen”, “settled issue”, and so on..
He knows that the facts are against him, which is why he is counting on the slovenly, stupid electorate to sweep him into office..qualified or not.
An honest broker would listen to the naysayers and agree to have this settled ASAP..
Unfortunately, Mr. cruz is not an honest broker..so I guess that does qualify him for the Presidency.

I was raised with that myself -- my dad was born in Britain, though a citizen of USA since a toddler, and that's what I was told all the years growing up. But reading things here, it's evident that there's more involved and also logical. For example, does any sane person actually think that because John McCain (whom I despise, by the way) was born in Panama (his folks were there with the US military), that he should be considered ineligible because of it? Not for a nano-second. Absolutely he is and was a natural born citizen in rights.

Personally, I think it should take both parents having many years of residency in the US under their belts as well as the child born, a requirement on having grown up in the US, but that's me. Pretty obviously, the spirit of the thing is to prevent a foreigner from becoming president. Cruz is as American as apple pie. It's as simple as that.

It is settled. Enjoy your trip to fantasy island. Iâ€™m not going with you.

Why the sarcasm toward dynoman?
He merely stated what a number of us also believe.
If Cruz is NBC, so is Obama.

My point is if Cruz is, so is Obama. If Obama wasnâ€™t, neither is Cruz. Obama actually is one step closer because he was born in the US. Cruz wasnâ€™t. Both their mothers were citizens, both their fathers were not.

Shack!

Thank you for apologizing. I have not yet decided on who gets my vote. I admire Ted Cruz, and respect his intelligence and integrity.

I am unsure about D. Trump, but understand why he is attracting so much support. Most of us are fed up with “business as usual” in D.C.

To be totally honest, I am very disillusioned and unsure about this entire mud mess of the election this year. I have been holding my nose and voting so many times now, and hate to think I will have to do it again.

All I want is some clarity, and the issue isn’t Ted Cruz, but it is the ambiguous circumstance of his “natural born” status. I want that clarified, or else any one born of an American mother and a foreign father cannot be challenged in the future.

That bothers me - the idea that “with world wide travel” any one born of a foreign father and American mother is eligible, no matter what the beliefs and loyalties of the father might be.

As an example -check the current occupant of the highest office in our land. It has nothing to do with the honorable Mr. Cruz, but with our incredible experiment and how easily it could be destroyed by those with an ulterior motive.

I tend to think about issues, not personalities.

Thank you for accepting my apology so graciously.

The issue here, as far as I am concerned, is whether or not one is authentically American. Cruz is.

Obama's scenario was very different. Same issue, different circumstances.

Like you, I focus less on personalities and more on issues. This particular issue is settled, for me. As for my main goal of advancing limited government conservatism with foundation in Christian values -- the very precise values that guided this nation's founders -- Ted Cruz fits that bill about as well as I could ask.

Trump, on the other hand, makes me cringe. One ends up only thinking in terms of personalities because issues are off the table in any case -- Did you watch the video?

Jacque, as a kid growing up I knew a guy who'd survived the Bataan Death March. When I see that video, Trump so smugly mocking with his "I like people who weren't captured," well ... like I say, it's hard to see beyond personalities with such a despicable display as that in light of the many other ways one could have dismissed McCain for the traitorous louse he was and is. But instead, Trump went for insulting a warrior's loss. Grrrr.

I was swayed by that argument until I found out more about the statutory history. A simple thought experiment shows how it legally works: Imagine a pregnant woman is called to fly to Tokyo over the weekend and delivers while she is there. She flies home with HER child and raises it to adulthood. Seems a pretty simple matter, but in reality it is not.

Consider Obama's case. He was raised for much of his childhood in Indonesia. My understanding is that his claimed for him foreign citizenship at that time. Such is entirely another case despite the citizenship of his parent. So it does get fuzzy.

So if it were up to me to clarify the situation, I would add the caveat that the child must not at any time have renounced American citizenship or claimed nationality to any other country. Even there one wonders if Cruz' parents ever claimed Canadian citizenship. As the law stands, I think it's pretty clear that Cruz qualifies, but I'd like to see better distinctions drawn, particularly when so many Americans work abroad.

While many people are expressing many opinions on Ted's NBC status, I don't know of a widely-accepted voice of authority that could end the debate. I doubt there is time to resolve this in court.

Certainly the Dems will use the issue if Ted wins the primary.

At the least, Ted better familiarize himself with the relevant laws and history, and with all the arguments.

My uncle, my mom’s beloved little brother, was the second wave to hit the beach in Iwo Jima. He was only 17 years old, and never recovered. He committed suicide in his early 40s, leaving two little boys and his wife to carry on.

Both of my sons have been in harm’s way. Both came very close to the ultimate sacrifice, but both were fortunate, thank the Lord.

I still have not decided, as I said. I get Trump’s “schtick”, and understand what he means by his over the top utterances. Does that mean I will vote for him, not necessarily.

Talk is cheap, and I worry that he has no idea of what he can actually do to get anything meaningful done considering the D.C. culture.

But, given the problems Ted Cruz has with the same cast of characters, what can he actually do to get us back on course?

I don’t see this as a football/soccer game, picking teams, choosing sides, and bashing the opposition. It hurts that Free Republic has come to this.

That is why I said it is a big mud mess we have on our hands - I want to be hopeful, but often feel like I am looking for the pony in a big pile of manure.

When we can’t even agree own what the rule of law means, I am afraid that there is no longer a rule of law. Think about that.

...do you really think a lawyer as smart as Cruz wouldn't have already done this?

I don't know. A month ago this seemed a minor issue. I would not blame Ted for failing to give it serious attention until very recently.

Before the 2008 election, Obama was able to ignore conservatives' requests for his long form because the MSM refused to raise the issue.

Ted will not be so lucky.

Whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, by virtue of his mother's citizenship status, Obama is a natural born citizen.

Not if he didn't renaturalize after returning from Jakarta to Honolulu. There's evidence he kept his Indonesian passport, used it, and repeatedly identified as an Indonesian citizen, at an age where such a claim of Indonesian citizenship might be construed as an election of citizenship by a dual (my sister faced the same situation; her voting in a Louisiana election made her election for her).

Still sure he's NBC?

With as long as the birther issue over Xero has been visible, do you really think a lawyer as smart as Cruz wouldn't have already done this?

If he were pessimistic about a judicial finding in his own case, or
If he had some hope that Obama's example would be precedential (see, "eavesdropping and wiretapping", Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, press response to each), or
If he thought the public and Media had been thoroughly anesthetized to citizenship issues and the Presidency

.... then he might have decided to await developments before making a newsworthy prayer for judicial relief.

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.