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?

That blockquote from Rotunda has play when the subject is born in the US, but when you change the circumstances of birth to born abroad, Mr. Rotunda's analysis would be remarkably different.

-- I can't imagine a court that would want to take on the issue ... --

I agree with that. If the people want to believe the sun orbits the earth or that people born in one nation are naturally citizens of another, the court is more than happy to step aside and let things roll. They have other things to do.

[Rush] It's settled. Cruz's mother was a citizen. Therefore he is. Deal with it.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Might not leave the kind of mark Rush and Cruz might hope for. Rush jumped it, no doubt. With all those Supreme Court decisions out there, I'm just not going to settle for some guy saying to me "Deal with it." That ain't gonna get it.

Cruz needs a declaratory judgment ... 'course the Dims will jump in with delaying tactics, like they did in Texas in 2012, pleading for continuances until they euchred us in Texas out of any chance to have an impact on the nominating races. But this time, if the Supremes prorogate (like they did in the Texas primary case), I dare the 'Rats to tempt them again by going back to court after being told to back off.

But Cruz needs his day in court to settle this. Contrariwise, Obama fought going to court, which is why I still suspect he has a lot to lose from an open and fair inspection of his bona fides and eligibility for office.

In 12 years of listening to Rush, I've never heard him put a foot wrong until today, but he did. Bad move, Rush.

No hypocrisy at all. The requirement is there to ensure that the President is loyal to America. Cruz clearly is, and he is clearly a US citizen. Obama has never been loyal to America, and since we have not been allowed to see if he was enrolled in college as a foreign student, we still cannot be sure if he really is or not. As to how the NBC requirement is interpreted today, I really don’t know. All I know is that the current precedent/president has opened that door that Cruz more than ably fits through, and I want a President who loves traditional America more than he loves being admired.

And sadly, the opportunists in the Trump camp ... reflect Trump's values, taking an "ends justify the means" approach. If they win and we end up with an ill-mannered deceitful angry big-government functional leftist Republican in the White House, why, that's what it took to "win."

Kind of like "winning" a really ugly lemon of a car.

Opportunists who defy ethics and honor in order to take advantage of an opportunity to "win," are losers. They are losers even when they win.

Trump is a symptom of a very sick and addled populace of "conservatives."

I have come to the conclusion that the ENTIRE media is owned and totally corrupt. Rush Limbaugh as well as Mark Levin are there to give a sense of balance and make us think we are making headway in getting our nation back. The truth is that just like the rinos in Congress, they are part of the other side, as they lie and deceive about issues such as this. Screw both of them and may they suffer the same fate as all of the traitors among us.

Could be, but it is what we were told at the time, and considering all the differing legal opinions that have been given, I still don’t have a clue.

If I am to assume that those who think a US citizen mother, and a foreign father - Queen Noor of Jordan’s children are eligible to run for president, and so are Grace Kelly’s children.

For that matter any USA girl who goes over to the mideast, and gives birth to a child fathered by a muslim jihadist is apparently now eligible to run for the oval office.

Is that what you are saying?

Then clearly, your common sense position is that the Democrats can, will, and should guide and manipulate every choice and option conservatives put forth. And I think that is extraordinarily stupid, to put yourself in the position of being so directly manipulated by your enemy at all times over any issue they care to dispute.

Do you really want "common sense," dynoman?

NOPE, you don't. If you did, you would have the common sense to see that the entire natural-born requirement is for one reason only: to prevent a foreigner from becoming president. Obama was eligible (probably, it looks to me, unless he was born in Kenya and at that only because of his mother's young age) though he was raised out of country for the most part, a foreigner in America. That's the way it is.

Common sense says that since Cruz is obviously a home-grown American culturally as well as legally, then this whole kerfluffle is SOLELY a waste of time for those sincerely seeking a great president.

Trump and others denied that Obama was in fact born in the United States, but really, that is beside the point. Both men were born to American citizens, and it is reasonable to think that the child assumes the status of the mother. It sure did when a child was born to a slave woman. In a country where the rights of the mother over the child are paramount, where the American citizenship of the Mother was never given up, I conclude that Cruz is eligible.

In all the time since Obama came onto the scene I knew that it would take a Repulican in the crosshairs to get this settled IF it would ever be settled in my lifetime.

Cruz could do a great service to this country by asking for a declaratory judgment.

People are giving him a pass because of who he is..but pretend for a minute that it is some jihadi family.You might change your tune.

And to say that America would never vote for a jihadi or a commie or a....well that got us Obama.

I just read parts of Minor v. Happersett, the opinion the caller cited. The case was about whether a woman citizen of the United States deserved the right to vote per the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. It is thus not an opinion on what constitutes a natural born citizen, and any comment on that topic would therefore be considered dicta. Nevertheless, Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. IOW it's a BS citation.

For that matter any USA girl who goes over to the mideast, and gives birth to a child fathered by a muslim jihadist is apparently now eligible to run for the oval office. Is that what you are saying?

Is that what you think any of us here who recognize yet another Trump Charade for what it is, are saying? Even you know the answer to that question, and you should blush because you know damned good and well that the answer is "no."

Like Trump, you desperately and emotionally lash out with stupid irrelevant arguments based on deceit -- you know perfectly well that it is only what YOU are saying as you insist on seeing only a small part of the entire context.

Dammit, I am running out of patience for willful stupidity such as you exhibit. READ and inform yourself as to the kinds of requirements made for people in such circumstances. Personally, I think the requirements are too loose in some ways, but the PURPOSE of the requirement is to prevent a foreigner from becoming president, and as obvious as the sun in the sky or the computer screen in front of your nose, Ted Cruz is an AMERICAN culturally as well as technically. Since that is the case, all the rest of this is timewasting crap to try to make it so a lesser guy, Trump, might win over a better man, Cruz.

I have nothing but contempt for people who willfully deceive themselves in order to promote their lousy, lying, angry, inept, shallow candidate.

Norm, a candidate doesn't have to be himself evil to auger evil consequences if he wins. A guy with supporters like these is bound to be a mistake in a position of power.

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.