Main Menu

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

The Republican Party proxy folks at Fox News certainly think so, with host Sean Hannity assuring viewers that Cruz can meet the constitutional requirements to become President of the United States.

imageUnlike President Obama, who successfully deflected rumors that he was born outside of the United States, Cruz will have no problems with such rumors. In his case, they are facts. Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

With all due respect to some serious researchers who arrived at a different conclusion, my study of the question has led me to conclude that anyone like Cruz, born a U. S. Citizen, whether in the United States or not, is a natural born citizen. However, I think that another Canadian who ran in 2012 was not eligible.

,

182 Responses to Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

  1. avatar
    Serpico March 20, 2013 at 3:36 pm #

    It’s interesting that he doesn’t call himself a natural born Citizen.

  2. avatar
    Arthur March 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

    Serpico: doesn’t call himself a natural born Citizen.

    U. S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Sub chapter III, Part I › 1401 that describes the permutations of American citizenship, including the variation one that makes Cruz a citizen, doesn’t use the term “natural born” either.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    I guess that means that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is just a statutory citizen and not a natural-born citizen.

    Is that the birther argument?

  3. avatar
    Jim March 20, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

    Arthur:
    Is that the birther argument?

    It’s going to be entertaining in a couple of years when Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz are running to follow the same birther sites and see how they will handle it. In fact, it will be fun to get them started on it now!

  4. avatar
    donna March 20, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    fox’s carl cameron said cruz in ineligible because he was born in canada

    as we have said, either you are naturalized or you are a natural born citizen at birth

    if cruz is ineligible, then let’s see his certificate of naturalization – (don’t copy it, etc, it’s punishable by law)

    http://www.immihelp.com/citizenship/sample-certificate-of-naturalization.html

    Jim: In fact, it will be fun to get them started on it now!

    let’s see cruz’s college applications – did he apply as a “foreigner”?

    sooo much fun!!!

  5. avatar
    Majority Will March 20, 2013 at 4:58 pm #

    Where is the proof he was born in Canada?

  6. avatar
    Thinker March 20, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

    Although I have seen no evidence to support Ted Cruz’s claim that he was born in Canada or that his parents are who he says they are, if the tale he tells is true, then I believe he is a natural born citizen.

    I read on the internet that Ted Cruz’s real father is Saul Alinsky. Has anyone been able to “refudiate” this rumor?

  7. avatar
    Northland10 March 20, 2013 at 6:17 pm #

    Serpico:
    It’s interesting that he doesn’t call himself a natural born Citizen.

    Who sits around and calls themselves a natural born citizen especially in a country where the only difference is eligibility for the Presidency? I don’t bother calling myself that even though I was born here. I was even born of 2 citizen parents, as we’re my parents going back over 200 years. Your statement is moronic.

  8. avatar
    Rickey March 20, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

    Serpico:
    It’s interesting that he doesn’t call himself a natural born Citizen.

    I’m waiting for you to demand his original, long-form birth certificate, the hospital records for his birth, and all of his school records. Also, we need to know his Social Security Number so we can e-verify it. Did Cruz ever register with Selective Service? Does he have dual citizenship by virtue of his birth in Canada?

    Did you know that Cruz’ father fought for Castro in Cuba? Cruz obviously is a Commie masking as a conservative.

    So many questions. What is he hiding?

  9. avatar
    Scientist March 20, 2013 at 6:36 pm #

    Unlike Kenya, Canada does not require opting in in order to retain citizenship-one born a Canadian citizen (as anyone born in Canada is) retains that status for life unless they renounce it officially and have that renunciatiion accepted by the government of Canada. Therefore, unlike President Obama, whose rights to Kenyan citizenship lapsed on his 23rd birthday, Sen Cruz is a current dual citizen (he is possibly a Cuban citizen as well) unless he renounced. Such dual citizenship does not in any way legally bar Sen Cruz from being President but opponents are free to raise it as a political issue.

  10. avatar
    Deborah March 20, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

    Thinker March 20, 2013 at 5:28 pm (Quote) #

    Although I have seen no evidence to support Ted Cruz’s claim that he was born in Canada or that his parents are who he says they are, if the tale he tells is true, then I believe he is a natural born citizen.

    I think that is the appropriate way to think from the onset, Thinker, except I would modify it to “I believe what he says is true unless evidence proves otherwise.”

    Everyone is “naturally born,” except clones, test tube, and designer babies.The Constitutional distinction “natural born citizen” is likely a distinction between city-dwellers vs. “barbarians, nomads and farmers,” and such. It probably originated as a distinction between Athenian versus Spartan citizens. I suspect it is an economic distinction that holds that city-dwellers are the upholders of the economy more so than other socioeconomic classes. However, the founders of the Constitution wished to minimize the class wars of Europe, and in fact, even Senator Socrates advocated a government in which “all classes” could be happy, rich and poor alike.

  11. avatar
    Deborah March 20, 2013 at 6:52 pm #

    I tried to edit that and lost my time. I would set aside the clone, test tube, designer babies and population control as a modern conspiracy theory. To date, even they are still “natural born.”

  12. avatar
    donna March 20, 2013 at 6:55 pm #

    Scientist:

    thanks for that – so cruz has “dual allegiance”?

    “In general, if you were born in Canada, you are a Canadian citizen.”

    Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com, said that “we know (Obama’s) father was a Kenyan citizen, and that he would therefore confer Kenyan or U.K. citizenship on his son, which would at best make him a dual citizen.”

    Dual citizenship, Farah asserted, “is not what the Founders had in mind when they coined the phrase ‘natural born citizen.'”

  13. avatar
    Deborah March 20, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

    Donna- the founding fathers, having emerged from controversy in Europe, certainly did NOT mean that the President had to be born of two white Christian parents, either.

    Look, this has nothing to do with his parents. Stop hassling him over his parents. He is an individual.

    This is why the judge always says, Order! Order in the Court!

  14. avatar
    Thinker March 20, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

    He is hiding that his real father is Saul Alinsky. I am not aware of any convincing evidence that Saul Alinsky is not his father. And it would explain why he gave Senator Feinstein the “Alinsky treatment” over his gun nuttery recently.

    Rickey Did you know that Cruz’ father fought for Castro in Cuba? Cruz obviously is a Commie masking as a conservative.

    So many questions. What is he hiding?

  15. avatar
    Birther Weary March 20, 2013 at 7:27 pm #

    Cruz in eligible no matter where he was born or who his parents were because he has a gold-plated RWNJ plaque issued to him by the GOP. One of those even trumps the Constitution.

  16. avatar
    Majority Will March 20, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

    Thinker:
    He is hiding that his real father is Saul Alinsky. I am not aware of any convincing evidence that Saul Alinsky is not his father. And it would explain why he gave Senator Feinstein the “Alinsky treatment” over his gun nuttery recently.

    How many millions has he paid to cover this up?

  17. avatar
    donna March 20, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

    Deborah:

    thanks

    in my post @ donna March 20, 2013 at 4:30 pm, inter alia i stated: as we have said, either you are naturalized or you are a natural born citizen at birth

    i also know the english translation of the french “les parents”

  18. avatar
    Thinker March 20, 2013 at 7:41 pm #

    I think Senator Cruz might also be hiding that he played Elmira Gulch/the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz in 1939.

    Seriously, he looks an awful lot like Margaret Hamilton.

  19. avatar
    roald March 20, 2013 at 7:42 pm #

    There is an article on Huffington Post on this. There are a few left-wing birthers there claiming that they know what the Constitution means by natural-born citizen and refuse to provide cites. One person is going with the natural birth approach, no C-section children need apply.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/ted-cruz-birther_n_2909774.html

  20. avatar
    john March 20, 2013 at 7:42 pm #

    http://networkedblogs.com/JtukM

    Linda Jordan has apparently “won”. She doesn’t has to pay $13,000 but still has to pay $3,500 plus some lawyer fees. Fortunately, donations have covered her costs.

  21. avatar
    Bob March 20, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

    The important thing is to just keep asking the question ‘Is “Ted Cruz” even eligible to be President of the United States?’ Has this “Ted Cruz” person presented his birth certificate?

    His Canadian troops are massing just over the border as I write.

    I’m concerned.

  22. avatar
    JoZeppy March 20, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    The answer is open to debate (and has been in legal academic circles, particularly when McCain ran). My personal belief, is no (although ultimately it is up to congress and the electoral college to make that call). The term “natural born citizen” is a term used in the contsitutiton. When determining what an undefined term of art used in the constitution means, we look to the common law. Common law definition of “natural born” means born within the territory, and subject to the jurisidiction. It did not mean merely citizen at birth. Had the founders intended the definition to mean something besides the common law definition, they would have defined it, as they did with the word treason. Now the Congress purports to have broadened the definition of “natural born citizen” by expanding, by statute, to those born abroad with a citizen parent or parents. The Supreme Court has recognized this as distinct from every day natural born citizenship (you can lose it depending on the terms the congress puts on your claim to that citizenship). So it isn’t the same beast as being born on the land, subject to the jurisdiction. Now we all learned in grade school the only way to change the constitution is by amendment. So how could the congress, change the definition of a phrase in the constitution, thus actually changing the requirements of the constitution? Congress only has the power to naturalize. So if a claim to citizenship is only supported by a statute, and not the common law definition of the terms, or by an amendment to the constitution, then how can that person be anything but a naturalized citizen? It would be naturalization by statute at birth.

    Just the theory I personally adhere to. I believe Michigan Law School had a symposium on the subject back in 2008, and one of the participants actually wrote on the theory much more elequently than I can.

  23. avatar
    donna March 20, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

    JoZeppy:

    there have been others, but in 2003, sen orinn hatch sponsored a constitutional amendment that would have allowed Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc to become president:

    the bill would have changed the Constitution to allow anyone who has lived in America for at least twenty years to run for the Presidency

    sen. granholm, born in canada, said “You can’t choose where you are born, but you can choose where you live and where you swear your allegiance.” and “[i]f the concern is about loyalty to America, which it is, then a requirement that a naturalized citizen have lived in this country for 25 or more years should alleviate that concern, particularly where someone was brought to this country as a child.”

    “25 or more years” was a requirement in another bill sponsored by rep Vic Synder in 2004

  24. avatar
    Jim March 20, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    So how could the congress, change the definition of a phrase in the constitution, thus actually changing the requirements of the constitution? Congress only has the power to naturalize.

    So, in order to decide who would need to be naturalized and who wouldn’t, wouldn’t that also give Congress the power to say who is already a citizen at birth?

  25. avatar
    Scientist March 20, 2013 at 8:58 pm #

    Joe Zeppy: The issue regarding McCain, which was discussed in the Michigan Law Review, was that Professor Chin thought he was not actually a citizen at birth because of the special status of the Canal Zone. McCain was only made a citizen retroactively by a law passed after his birth. I believe that Chin accepts that those who are birth citizens are eligible. In fact, he argued that had McCain been born in Panama, rather than the Canal Zone, he would have been eligible.

    In the real world, McCain would have been in the White House had he won the election, as would Cruz. But, also, in the real world, Cruz has far less chance than McCain of ever ending up there, other than on a tour, and tours have been cancelled.

  26. avatar
    Deborah March 20, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

    A Constitutional Convention is necessary to amend the Constitution (rare to never).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_%28United_States%29

  27. avatar
    Deborah March 20, 2013 at 10:08 pm #

    Citi-zen =city dweller. Natural is…a dweller in the garden of Eden, past or future, just not in the present.

  28. avatar
    Deborah March 20, 2013 at 10:19 pm #

    A citizen of Athens is one sprung from the loins of Zeus and Hera.

  29. avatar
    justlw March 20, 2013 at 10:25 pm #

    Thinker:

    I read on the internet that Ted Cruz’s real father is Saul Alinsky. Has anyone been able to “refudiate” this rumor?

    What a coinky-dink: I just read that on the Internet myself, not 10 seconds ago! Where there’s smoke, eh?

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 20, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

    My problem here is whether “natural born citizen” is actually a term of art and whether it was ever “defined” as you defined it.

    In English statutory law in 1789, the children of English subjects born outside the country were “natural born subjects.” If “natural born subject” were defined by English common law as persons born in the country, then the statute would not make sense as it would be contradicting the “definition”.

    If on the other hand “natural born subject” were not a term of art, then it would be a term of common language, whose dictionary definition is: having a quality from birth.

    In that case, the common law would say that persons born in the country and jurisdiction were subjects from birth, and the statutory law would say that persons born without the country, but to subjects were also subjects from birth. “Natural born subject” would then be the common language term to describe that condition stemming for some from the common law and for others the statute.

    Further, if we were to determine that “natural born subject/citizen” were a term of art, why would you say that it was “defined” as persons born in the country and jurisdiction as opposed to defined as “subject/citizen at birth?”

    I think we would agree that “felony” is a term of art, and that it might be defined by the English Common Law. However, I don’t think one would define felony under the Common Law according to some particular crime that was a felony under the Common Law. By analogy, why would we define “natural born subject” according to one class of persons who were natural born subjects under the Common Law?

    JoZeppy: The term “natural born citizen” is a term used in the contsitutiton. When determining what an undefined term of art used in the constitution means, we look to the common law. Common law definition of “natural born” means born within the territory, and subject to the jurisidiction.

  31. avatar
    Deborah March 21, 2013 at 2:31 am #

    Citizens define citizens. (They also define felons and deprive them of the right to vote and participate in government).

    In the case by Orly Taitz against the U.S. President, the slurs against him are also slurs against the United States citizens. Some of us take her attacks against him personally, as though she was making those same accusations against ourselves, the common people.

    No matter what his socioeconomic class or education, he is a man. The political theory “first among equals” might be considered. (Compare first among equals to all men are created equal- meaning that given equal opportunity, all men have equal potential to achieve).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_among_equals

    If this were a real criminal case against Obama (which it isn’t), the case would read The People of the United States [citizens] v. Obama. I suppose a criminal case against Orly would read The People of the United States v. Orly Taitz.

    As for Ted Cruz, it may be that a Constitutional Convention would be attempted by his supporters to “re-define” the term. There have only been about 26 Constitutional Conventions in the last 200 years according to my very brief research.

    It’s easier to face the issue now, and with Orly, because we simply have to ask ourselves as citizens how, and what would we do to defend our own selves against her attacks.

    I kind of think she should have her citizenship revoked. Perhaps she should be deported. Maybe a family member could have her declared legally incompetent and put away for mental treatment. I live here in California. I am wondering if Englund will turn her in to the California Bar.

  32. avatar
    Deborah March 21, 2013 at 3:08 am #

    Your US citizenship can be cancelled if you refuse to testify before a committee formed by the US Congress to investigate your participation in subversive activities.

    http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/Denaturalization-Revoking-Your-US-Citizenship.html

  33. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2013 at 6:03 am #

    Deborah:
    A Constitutional Convention is necessary to amend the Constitution (rare to never).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_%28United_States%29

    A Constitutional Convention is NOT required to change the Constitution. A Constitutional Convention MAY be called to propose Amendments, but Congress can propose Amendments too.

    There has never been a Constitutional Convention (since adoption) and yet there are 27 Amendments.

  34. avatar
    The Magic M March 21, 2013 at 6:07 am #

    Deborah: Your US citizenship can be cancelled if you were naturalized and

    FIFY.

    Besides, if your comment was directed at Orly, do you really think she would refuse to “testify”? For Orly, “testifying” means “another opportunity to talk about my birther theories”.

  35. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2013 at 6:15 am #

    Deborah: As for Ted Cruz, it may be that a Constitutional Convention would be attempted by his supporters to “re-define” the term. There have only been about 26 Constitutional Conventions in the last 200 years according to my very brief research.

    Your brief research is wrong. There have been ZERO Constitutional Conventions since adoption of the Constitution in 1789.

    According to your own link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Every state except Hawaii has applied for an Article V convention at one time or another. The majority of such applications were made in the 20th century. While there is no official count of the number of applications, one private count puts the total number of applications at over 700.[14][15]

    Even though the Article V convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on several occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention.[16]

    There have been two nearly-successful attempts to amend the Constitution via an Article V convention since the late 1960s. The first try was an attempt to propose an amendment that would overturn two Supreme Court decisions, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, decisions that required states to adhere to the one man, one vote principle in drawing electoral districts for state and federal elections. The attempt fell only one state short of reaching the 34 needed to force Congress to call a convention in 1969, but ended by the death of its main promoter Senator Everett Dirksen. After this peak, several states rescinded their applications, and interest in the proposed amendment subsided.[17] The next nearly-successful attempt to call a convention was in the late 1970s and 1980s, in response to the ballooning federal deficit. States began applying to Congress for an Article V convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. By 1983, the number of applications had reached 32, only two states short of the 34 needed to force such a convention.[18] Enthusiasm for the amendment subsided in response to fears that an Article V convention could not be limited to a single subject and because Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which required that the budget be balanced by 1991 (but that Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1986).[

  36. avatar
    The Magic M March 21, 2013 at 6:17 am #

    Deborah: A Constitutional Convention is necessary to amend the Constitution

    Wrong. Your own link to Wikipedia says otherwise:

    A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, is one of two alternative procedures for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution described in Article Five of the Constitution. The other method is a vote by two-thirds of each house of Congress.

  37. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2013 at 6:17 am #

    Deborah:
    Your US citizenship can be cancelled if you refuse to testify before a committee formed by the US Congress to investigate your participation in subversive activities.

    http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/Denaturalization-Revoking-Your-US-Citizenship.html

    That ONLY applies to NATURALIZED citizens.

    Natural Born Citizens CANNOT have their citizenship revoked. They may renounce it, but it cannot be revoked. Period.

  38. avatar
    Gabe March 21, 2013 at 7:09 am #

    The spin that is put on who is a natural born citizen vs. citizen by the majority of posters, trying to pass their dribble as an intelligent discourse on the citizen classification would make an F5 tornado seem like a spring breeze, leaving Dorothy and Toto stranded in Kansas, as the intellectual of the so called anti-birters, anguish in OZ, as the arrival of Dorothy is delayed.

  39. avatar
    Deborah March 21, 2013 at 7:35 am #

    I’ve noticed that people post comments without reading the entire threads and following the entire course of reasoning. That’s not my problem.

    Orly is bad for the country.

  40. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2013 at 7:50 am #

    Gabe:
    The spin that is put on who is a natural born citizen vs. citizen by the majority of posters, trying to pass their dribbleas an intelligent discourse on the citizen classification would make an F5 tornado seem like a spring breeze, leaving Dorothyand Toto stranded in Kansas, as the intellectual of the so called anti-birters, anguishin OZ, as the arrival of Dorothy is delayed.

    Are you more knowledgeable on the Constitution, U.S. law and the definition of natural born citizen than former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor?

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
    – former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

    She served as an Associate Justice from her appointment in 1981 by Ronald Reagan until her retirement from the Court in 2006.

    Party: Republican Party

    Education: Stanford University (1950), Austin High School, Stanford Law School

    Awards: Presidential Medal of Freedom

    And no, I’m not expecting a cogent or rational reply but you should invite the former Justice to dinner.

  41. avatar
    Deborah March 21, 2013 at 7:52 am #

    There are two ways to amend the Constitution; via the House and Senate, OR a Constitutional Amendment (which I SAID is rare to never, off the top of my head). Read the entire thread.

    The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention’s proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm

    In theory, some U.S. voters may support Cruz while other voters (once again) challenge the natural born citizen clause. If his supporters want to clarify the issue once for all time, they have two methods to amend the definition of a “natural born citizen” if they choose.

    And as for the deportation issue, of course I was referring to Orly; once concept of justice being that she should get the exact same misery she wishes for Obama- being deported!

  42. avatar
    Deborah March 21, 2013 at 7:55 am #

    Gabe: no, the arrival of Dorothy is NOT delayed. Go back quite a few posts and read up on first among equals and all men are created equal. It’s all spelled out very clear: HE’S A MAN.

    “as the arrival of Dorothy is delayed…”

    I have no interest one way or the other if Cruz wins or not. We have enough problems in the present. BUT, if it does become an issue, there are two ways to amend the Constitution, as I see it. Sheesh.

  43. avatar
    Deborah March 21, 2013 at 8:03 am #

    Moving on from this thread now. Tomorrow today will be yesterday and there’s no turning back.

  44. avatar
    Deborah March 21, 2013 at 8:15 am #

    Your US citizenship can be cancelled if you refuse to testify before a committee formed by the US Congress to investigate your participation in subversive activities.

    http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/Denaturalization-Revoking-Your-US-Citizenship.html

    The top statement, “your US citizenship…” is simply a direct quote from the link posted underneath it, and my comment was simply an afterthought to a post made directly above it that Orly should be deported. The use of the word “your” was a copy and paste.

  45. avatar
    Paper March 21, 2013 at 8:33 am #

    Perhaps instead, Gabe, you’d like to take up the matter of your natural born childishness with the Congressional Research Service?

    Gabe:
    The spin that is put on who is a natural born citizen vs. citizen by the majority of posters, trying to pass their dribbleas an intelligent discourse on the citizen classification…

    ——————

    You can prep with this, Gabe:

    Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
    Jack Maskell
    Legislative Attorney November 14, 2011

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).

    The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

  46. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 21, 2013 at 9:24 am #

    Deborah: I’ve noticed that people post comments without reading the entire threads and following the entire course of reasoning. That’s not my problem.

    What is your problem is that you posted two clear errors of fact, a flawed premise, and failed to indicate that you were directly quoting (thus stripping the quote of necessary context). No amount of reading would correct for the errors of fact or flawed premise, and the undeclared quote requires reading outside the thread. If you make errors of fact or posit flawed premises, you will likely be called on it. Fail to indicate that you are quoting something (by the way, this is plagiarism), people will likely assume that you are paraphrasing or interpreting what you read.

    At least with the quoting, there are easy fixes available to you in the future. Simplest is just putting quotation marks around the quoted phrase. Or you can blockquote it. There’s no easy fix for the other problems you had, because it requires you to improve your comprehension skills. So my recommendation is that rather than trying to pin your failures on others, graciously admit your mistakes. We all make them, it’s how we respond when they are discovered that is important – and a big part in what separates us from the birthers.

  47. avatar
    Haceaw March 21, 2013 at 10:04 am #

    From Wiki: “[Ted] Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where his parents, Eleanor Darragh and Rafael Cruz, were working in the oil business. His father was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution. His mother was reared in Delaware, in a family of Irish and Italian descent.”

    Assuming the father was never a naturalized citizen but holds a U. S. Passport, Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act would apply: ” The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_781.html

    So this defination of 8 USC 1401 would then apply from above to the son: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    So, yeah, Ted Cruz would be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

  48. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    Haceaw:
    From Wiki: “[Ted] Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where his parents, Eleanor Darragh and Rafael Cruz, were working in the oil business. His father was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution. His mother was reared in Delaware, in a family of Irish and Italian descent.”

    Assuming the father was never a naturalized citizen but holds a U. S. Passport, Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act would apply: ” The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_781.html

    So this defination of8 USC 1401 would then apply from above to the son: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    So, yeah, Ted Cruz would be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Your opinion is interesting but based on assumptions.

    Birther bigots always demand that the person being questioned is obligated to meet each and every one of their demands of proof to their own satisfaction and beyond any of their doubts regardless of relevance to U. S. law.

  49. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2013 at 11:41 am #

    Haceaw:

    Assuming the father was never a naturalized citizen but holds a U. S. Passport, Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act would apply: ” The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”

    That’s a big assumption. We know that Cruz’ parents were in Canada at the time of his birth, but they did not need passports to travel to Canada. In fact, there is no evidence that Rafael Cruz has ever held a U.S. passport. We do know that he became a U.S. citizen in 2005.

    So, yeah, Ted Cruz would be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    I agree, but it has nothing to do with this father’s status. Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth, so in my opinion that makes him a natural-born citizen. Of course, we would like to see his birth certificate to confirm that his mother really is his mother.

  50. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2013 at 11:56 am #

    Deborah:
    I’ve noticed that people post comments without reading the entire threads and following the entire course of reasoning. That’s not my problem.

    Orly is bad for the country.

    A couple of suggestions for you.

    Use the quote function when responding to posts. That way we know who you are responding to and what comment you are responding to. If you need help in figuring out how to use the quote function, just ask and someone here will be happly to walk you through it.

    When quoting from something you have read elsewhere, put it in quotation marks or italics. Otherwise people are going to assume that they are your words.

    Always strive for clarity. When you posted “Your US citizenship can be cancelled if you refuse to testify before a committee formed by the US Congress to investigate your participation in subversive activities” it appeared to be your own words. If you had put it in quotation marks, everyone would have realized that you were quoting from the link which you included in your note.

  51. avatar
    bobj March 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

    Is there a difference between being a U.S citizen at birth and acquiring U.S citizenship at birth?

    http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html

    I also wonder what the birthers would say about a person under the section f of the following.

    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html

    Personally, I believe it is up to Congress to decide who is eligible to be President. What happened with Senator McCain, in 2008, was great.
    There are some interesting gray areas about citizenship. Unfortunately for the Obama birther crowd, the President is not in any of those areas.

  52. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

    Rickey: That’s a big assumption. We know that Cruz’ parents were in Canada at the time of his birth, but they did not need passports to travel to Canada. In fact, there is no evidence that Rafael Cruz has ever held a U.S. passport. We do know that he became a U.S. citizen in 2005.

    I agree, but it has nothing to do with this father’s status. Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth, so in my opinion that makes him a natural-born citizen. Of course, we would like to see his birth certificate to confirm that his mother really is his mother.

    Vault original only, of course.

  53. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 21, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    Haceaw:
    From Wiki: “[Ted] Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where his parents, Eleanor Darragh and Rafael Cruz, were working in the oil business. His father was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution. His mother was reared in Delaware, in a family of Irish and Italian descent.”

    Assuming the father was never a naturalized citizen but holds a U. S. Passport, Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act would apply: ” The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_781.html

    So this defination of8 USC 1401 would then apply from above to the son: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    So, yeah, Ted Cruz would be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Actually, the section is a few sections down from that. His father was a Cuban citizen, living in Canada at the time. He was born in Canada. There’s no evidence that his father was a National of the United States at the time he was born.

    So, Cruz would fall under 8 USC 1401 (g), not 8 USC 1401 (d).

    Cruz is still a Natural Born Citizen, but because of a different statute.

  54. avatar
    donna March 21, 2013 at 1:36 pm #

    dunstvangeet: So, Cruz would fall under 8 USC 1401 (g), not 8 USC 1401 (d).

    silly you citing US code when we have the erroneous english translations of swiss philosopher vattel to rely on

  55. avatar
    JoZeppy March 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In English statutory law in 1789, the children of English subjects born outside the country were “natural born subjects.” If “natural born subject” were defined by English common law as persons born in the country, then the statute would not make sense as it would be contradicting the “definition”.

    The statute doesn’t “contradict” the definition, it alters it going forward. One can alter the common law through statute. This is not unual. The common law is merely judge made law, which can be altered by later statute (happens all the time, and is really nothing out of the ordinary…this is particularly the case in torts). However, in the case where we’re speaking about our constitution, it has to be by amendment. We take the common law meaning as the date of ratification of the constitution, which officially took effect when New Hampshire was the 9th state to ratify it on June 21, 1788, before the statutory alteration of the English common law definition of NBC.

    Dr. Conspiracy: If on the other hand “natural born subject” were not a term of art, then it would be a term of common language, whose dictionary definition is: having a quality from birth.
    In that case, the common law would say that persons born in the country and jurisdiction were subjects from birth, and the statutory law would say that persons born without the country, but to subjects were also subjects from birth. “Natural born subject” would then be the common language term to describe that condition stemming for some from the common law and for others the statute.

    The only issue here is that both Minor and WKA say look to the common law for the definition. It seems fairly well established that the common law definition of NBC is the definition, not some general meaning.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Further, if we were to determine that “natural born subject/citizen” were a term of art, why would you say that it was “defined” as persons born in the country and jurisdiction as opposed to defined as “subject/citizen at birth?”

    Because that is how WKA defined it, relying on Calvin’s case before it. Where does one find the common law, but a court opinion?

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think we would agree that “felony” is a term of art, and that it might be defined by the English Common Law. However, I don’t think one would define felony under the Common Law according to some particular crime that was a felony under the Common Law. By analogy, why would we define “natural born subject” according to one class of persons who were natural born subjects under the Common Law?

    The difference being that the term felony does not raise Constitutional implications, therefore, any statutory alterations to the definition of the phrase are subject to normal legislative powers. Changing the common law meaning of the phrase, “Natural Born Citizen” is a de facto amendment to the Constitution. I would argue that you can’t get around the amendment requirements of the Constitution by legislatively changing the meaning of the words.

  56. avatar
    Thinker March 21, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

    A birth certificate–a piece of garbage on the internet–will not confirm who his parents are. Everybody involved in creating, storing, and disclosing his “birth certificate” might be involved in a multi-country, decades-long conspiracy to make Ted Cruz the President of the United States. It’s a classic Alinsky tactic. And remember, Ted Cruz claims to be born in Canada. Canada is right next to Detroit. Saul Alinsky spent a lot of time in Detroit. He was palling around with Mitt Romney’s father.

    I have not seen any evidence showing that Saul Alinsky was not Ted Cruz’s father.

    Rickey: That’s a big assumption. We know that Cruz’ parents were in Canada at the time of his birth, but they did not need passports to travel to Canada. In fact, there is no evidence that Rafael Cruz has ever held a U.S. passport. We do know that he became a U.S. citizen in 2005.

    I agree, but it has nothing to do with this father’s status. Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth, so in my opinion that makes him a natural-born citizen. Of course, we would like to see his birth certificate to confirm that his mother really is his mother.

  57. avatar
    justlw March 21, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

    I find it interesting that Ted Cruz spends so much time talking about Communists. Daddy issues, perhaps?

    I’m not saying this is true — I ended that sentence with a question mark! — I’d just like him to address this simple issue once and for all, and we can then move on. The fact that he has not done so yet is troubling; troubling, indeed.

  58. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

    Deborah: The top statement, “your US citizenship…” is simply a direct quote from the link posted underneath it,

    Yes, and that article is talking only about Naturalized citizens. Your post, in its entire and full context (which I quoted) made no mention of that, and implied by that ommission that you were trying to say ‘any citizen’ can have their citizenship revoked – which is simply not true, and is what I was trying to point out.

    The pattern seemed to be one of quote mining – taking a paragraph or sentence out of context and attempting to manufacture a completely new context for it. It is an extremely common ‘tactic’ attempted by birthers and other ‘nutters’ (on all sides of what ever discussion is going on).

    If I was wrong about your intent, I apologize for being too curt, however your assertion needed to be corrected. You may have thought you were specifically discussing Orly in your post, but that was not at all clear.

    Likewise about the Constitution Amendment process. You made two assertions, both of which were completely false – a Constitutional Amendment requires a Constitutional Convention and Constitutional Conventions have been used 26 times. You accuse us of not reading your posts, but you clearly didn’t read the articles you linked because those articles directly contradicted your assertions.

    Those assertions cannot be allowed to stand, no matter what your intentions are. They are wrong, and that is ‘what we do’ here – correct false assertions.

  59. avatar
    Haceaw March 21, 2013 at 3:12 pm #

    Dunstvangeet, donna, I first looked at paragraph (g) but what threw me was the proviso regarding military or U.S. employees that made me think that paragraph dealt with children born to servicepersons overseas, so I focused on (d) since father Cruz immigrated to and have official residency in the U.S. at the time of baby Ted’s birth.

    And Rickey gave me a memory correction regarding Canadian/U.S. relations on border crossings forty years ago (how things change).

    So further looking around on the subject I found the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service ( http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextchannel=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextoid=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD ) and looking at the third row of the table there clarified things by showing the proviso is more of a “sweetener” and not a “limit”:

    “A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth IF…

    One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is before November 14, 1986 but after October 10, 1952

    AND…

    The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.

    If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

    ** Serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces;
    ** Employed with the U.S. Government; or
    ** Employed with certain international organizations.

    Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.”

  60. avatar
    donna March 21, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

    justlw:

    cruz has trouble answering birther questions let alone questions about his cuban father’s politics

    citizen wells: “From the FEC October 1, 2012.

    DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

    WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf) and the text of the Order may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf).”

    “Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
    that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
    repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
    not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
    colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
    determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
    been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

    “Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of
    Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

    “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

    FEC March 11, 2013.

    APPEALS COURT ISSUES PER CURIAM ORDER IN HASSAN v. FEC

    Appellant cites no authority to support his contention that a constitutional provision can be implicitly repealed, nor has he shown the natural-born citizen requirement is in irreconcilable conflict with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or that those amendments “cover [ ] the whole subject” of the requirement and are “clearly intended as a substitute.”

    http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_ac_order2.pdf

  61. avatar
    donna March 21, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    Senator Ted Cruz and 7 Other Politicians at the Heart of Birther Conspiracies

    mccain, chester arthur, george romney, marco rubio, bobby jindal, barry goldwater, barack obama

    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/senator-ted-cruz-birther-conspiracy-theories/story?id=18773244#

  62. avatar
    Gabe March 21, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    Majority Will: Are you more knowledgeable on the Constitution, U.S. law and the definition of natural born citizen than former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor?

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
    – former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

    She served as an Associate Justice from her appointment in 1981 by Ronald Reagan until her retirement from the Court in 2006.

    Party: Republican Party

    Education: Stanford University (1950), Austin High School, Stanford Law School

    Awards: Presidential Medal of Freedom

    And no, I’m not expecting a cogent or rational reply but you should invite the former Justice to dinner.

    What point are you trying to make?

    Obama could have been born in the White House. For what it matters where he was born in the USA, it still would not make him a natural born citizen. Unless of course Frank Marshall Davis is his father, then he would be natural born. An interesting point on this is the court-martial of Lt. Col. Larkin, the trial judge refused some discovery, saying “it may be embarrassing to Obama, now what could be more embarrassing then saying who was your daddy (Barrack Obama, Sr.), is not really your daddy at all?

  63. avatar
    Paper March 21, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    JoZeppy,

    See:

    Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
    Jack Maskell
    Legislative Attorney November 14, 2011

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    (emphasis mine)


    From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the
    term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included
    both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory
    laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British
    fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).

    Other legal scholars have contended that long-standing and commonly accepted principles
    incorporated into English law by statute over several centuries, even if they did not merely “declare” already-existing English common law, actually modified the corpus of the common law to incorporate such principles, and that this body of law was the one known to the framers, such that the provisions of the Constitution must be interpreted in that light.

    It was, in fact, common in the states after independence, upon the adoption of their constitutions and statutes, to incorporate both the common law of England, as well as the statutory laws adopted by Parliament and applicable in the colonies up until a particular date.76 There is thus some argument and indication that it was common for a “modified” English common law—modified by long-standing provisions of English statutory law applicable in the colonies—to be among the traditions and bodies of law incorporated into the laws, applications, usages, and interpretations in the beginning of our nation.

    ————

    JoZeppy: The statute doesn’t “contradict” the definition, it alters it going forward.One can alter the common law through statute.This is not unual.The common law is merely judge made law, which can be altered by later statute (happens all the time, and is really nothing out of the ordinary…this is particularly the case in torts).However, in the case where we’re speaking about our constitution, it has to be by amendment.We take the common law meaning as the date of ratification of the constitution, which officially took effect when New Hampshire was the 9th state to ratify it on June 21, 1788, before the statutory alteration of the English common law definition of NBC.

  64. avatar
    Scientist March 21, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    Thinker: And remember, Ted Cruz claims to be born in Canada.

    To be fair, he claims to have been born in Alberta (or Oil-berta, as it is called in the rest of Canada), the most “American” province of Canada and specifically in Calgary, which is considered to be “Houston, North” by Canadians in other provinces.

  65. avatar
    JoZeppy March 21, 2013 at 5:20 pm #

    Gabe: What point are you trying to make?

    The point that you made very clear…..what you think “natural born citizen” means is entirely different than that which is accepted by the entire legal community, including Supreme Court justices…..and to the reality based world, that translates to you don’t have the first clue about what you’re talking about.

  66. avatar
    Paper March 21, 2013 at 5:22 pm #

    The point Majority Will was making is that no one of any consequence agrees with your idea of needing two citizen parents. Not Sandra Day O’Connor, nor the Congressional Research Service (as I have noted). And that you have no source mentioning any two citizen parent requirement. Meanwhile, there are plenty of sources saying all that is needed is being born here.

    Gabe: What point are you trying to make?

  67. avatar
    JoZeppy March 21, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

    Paper: Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
    Jack Maskell
    Legislative Attorney November 14, 2011
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
    (emphasis mine)

    From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the
    term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included
    both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory
    laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British
    fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).

    A very intersting point. Which my question would be, how does that squre with the fact that Calvin’s case from 1608, upon which we rely on for our definition in WKA, makes no mention of these additions? Calvin’s case (as far as I recall), only went so far as to frame it in terms of jus soli. I open minded to the possibility that it may include more, and that I am dead wrong. I just would like to see some citation to some case between 1608 and today that clearly states that it can be more.

  68. avatar
    gorefan March 21, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

    Gabe: An interesting point on this is the court-martial of Lt. Col. Larkin, the trial judge refused some discovery, saying “it may be embarrassing to Obama, now what could be more embarrassing then saying who was your daddy (Barrack Obama, Sr.), is not really your daddy at all?

    That is not true. Embarrass in that context has a different meaning than what you think it does.

  69. avatar
    justlw March 21, 2013 at 5:40 pm #

    Gabe: An interesting point on this is the court-martial of Lt. Col. Larkin, the trial judge refused some discovery, saying “it may be embarrassing to Obama, now what could be more embarrassing then saying who was your daddy (Barrack Obama, Sr.), is not really your daddy at all?

    1. Please learn to use the “quote” function. It’s not that difficult. (Hint: don’t put your own words within the block quote!)

    2. It’s “Lakin.”

    3. It’s “Barack.”

    4. That isn’t what happened at the Blue Falcon’s trial. Do not confuse legal terminology for generic English. Also, don’t depend on WND for your view of reality.

    5. I’m guessing they didn’t teach sentence diagramming where you went to school.

  70. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2013 at 5:45 pm #

    And I wouldn’t expect a bigoted moron with a tenuous grasp on reality to understand the court’s use of the term embarrass.

  71. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

    Obama could have been born in the White House. For what it matters where he was born in the USA, it still would not make him a natural born citizen. Unless of course Frank Marshall Davis is his father, then he would be natural born. An interesting point on this is the court-martial of Lt. Col. Larkin, the trial judge refused some discovery, saying “it may be embarrassing to Obama.”

    Gabe:

    Not true. The judge said no such thing.

    When used in a legal sense, “embarrass” means to impede; obstruct; hamper. Lakin wanted to judge to rule on Obama’s eligibility. The judge responded that any ruling on that point would “embarrass” the separation of powers. She never said or implied that it would embarrass Obama.

    Feel free to acknowledge your error.

  72. avatar
    justlw March 21, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    Rickey: Feel free to acknowledge your error.

    AHHH HAHAHAHAHA!

    *phew* Sorry.

  73. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

    justlw: AHHH HAHAHAHAHA!

    *phew* Sorry.

    Ditto.

  74. avatar
    James M March 21, 2013 at 6:47 pm #

    Northland10: Who sits around and calls themselves a natural born citizen especially in a country where the only difference is eligibility for the Presidency?

    For someone with aspirations of seeking a party’s nomination to run for the office of the President, it’s a relevant concern.

    I don’t bother calling myself that even though I was born here.I was even born of 2 citizen parents, as we’re my parents going back over 200 years.Your statement is moronic.

    Do you have any expectations of running for President? If not, then it is not a concern of yours. Drawing a distinction between you, who will not be a candidate, and one of these politicians who may very likely run for the office is not “moronic.”

  75. avatar
    donna March 21, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

    James M: it’s a relevant concern.

    ONLY FOR people who believe we have a separate class of citizens for people who aspire to be president

    has ANY civics class taught that?

    birthers have lost 337 times, “including 245 times in administrative or circuit courts, 70 times in appellate courts, and 22 times at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    no fewer than 10 courts have found obama to be a “natural born citizen”

    talk about “moronic” – don’t you have enough brain cells to get a headache from beating your head against the wall?

  76. avatar
    Gabe March 21, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

    If there is a college program possibly a Certificate at the end of the course, for putting “Spin” on a subject? Most of the replies to my post on the tribulation of Lt. Col. Lakin and Obama’s daddy would have the Certificate awarded as, OJT credit to the writers. With an invite to teach the course.

    Reading these replies, is somewhat akin to a drowning person at the beach fighting the lifeguards as they attempt a rescue, happens all the time.

  77. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 21, 2013 at 7:57 pm #

    “Birthers”, you liberals are so funny.

    From the other side we don’t refer to ourselves as “birthers”. That is so 3rd grade.

    When are you guys going to grow up? Get out of you parent’s basement? Earn a real living instead of negro worship?

  78. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 21, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

    I like the way Dr. Ignorance used the word “deflected”. That shows he is not sure where Barry Saetoro, aka, Barry Soetoro, Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Bounel, (insert another name here, can be anything) was born either.

    VERY telling Dr. Ignorance!!!

  79. avatar
    justlw March 21, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    You keep making several mistakes, over and over again, one of which that this is somehow about “liberals.” A significant number of the people who hang out here are conservatives, and did not vote for Obama.

    “Negro worship” is cute, though. Always interesting to see how true the claim that birtherism “isn’t about race!” is.

  80. avatar
    justlw March 21, 2013 at 8:21 pm #

    Gabe:
    ….would have the Certificate awarded as, OJT credit to the writers.

    Whereas none of your posts would earn you ESL credit at any reputable community college.

  81. avatar
    Scientist March 21, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    Gabe: If there is a college program possibly a Certificate at the end of the course, for putting “Spin” on a subject?

    It’s called Marketing. Almost every college offers a major or minor in it. Tell me though, in your expert opinion, is it possible to present a subject without any viewpoint at all? Is it possible for a person to have no viewpoint at all? I don’t think so. Einstein says all depends on the frame of reference…

  82. avatar
    Gabe March 21, 2013 at 8:31 pm #

    Rickey: Not true. The judge said no such thing.

    When used in a legal sense, “embarrass” means to impede; obstruct; hamper. Lakin wanted to judge to rule on Obama’s eligibility. The judge responded that any ruling on that point would “embarrass” the separation of powers. She never said or implied that it would embarrass Obama.

    Feel free to acknowledge your error.

    ”Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.

    She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the President”.

    does Judge Lind’s decision say the Presidency, no. It says the President, meaning who other than the President.

    Can you now, acknowledge your error?

  83. avatar
    Jim March 21, 2013 at 8:48 pm #

    Gabe:

    She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the President”.

    You really need to make sure you never have to defend yourself in court Gabe, because you’d be chewed up and spit out without even a worry by the other side.

    Her exact words were:
    “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

    Nothing about the President buddy.

    Actually she used the word Embarrassment twice n her ruling, dude. And Unlike you I’m going to quote the full paragraphs as I do not love to ignore a 9 page judgment to only focus on one word.

    (1962).Under Baker, the court should preclude judicial review of a political question upon a finding of one or more of the following factors:
    (1).a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
    (2).a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
    (3). the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy detenmination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
    (4).The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government; or
    (5)a n unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made or the embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

    and

    13. In the context of this Article 1 court-martial for a service member accused of disobeying orders to challenge the constitutional qualifications of the President to hold office, there is also an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political policy decision already made. The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.

    So Gabe, another misreading by you (what a surprise). Give it up man, you haven’t got a chance.

    You can read the whole judgment here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/37124325/LCOL … Judge-Lind Remember this is the judgment that caused Jensen to scuttle away from the case, so there is a lot more there than one word that people like you can attempt to spin out of context.

    IN CONTEXT she is clearly evaluating the case under Baker. The word ‘Embarrassment’ under Baker means “impede the function of.” Its not an unusual use of the meaning. if you have any doctor friends, ask them the meaning of ‘respiratory embarrassment.’ Its not your lungs going “OH MY GOD! I AM SO ASHAMED TO BE DRESSED LIKE THIS”

    So in context she is saying “asking every court to adjudicate on the same bloody question is wasting time and resources, the courts don’t have the authority to adjudicate this question anyway, and it has the possibility for messing up the army with every idiot wanting to stay home or just wanting to stay in bed using this bullshit excuse.”

    Congress was not even mentioned, and neither was President Obama.

    So the question is…can you acknowledge YOUR error or you gonna run off with your tail stuck between your legs…again!

  84. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2013 at 8:58 pm #

    Gabe: does Judge Lind’s decision say the Presidency, no. It says the President, meaning who other than the President.

    Are you a legal expert?

    Your birther bigot buddy is accusing posters here of ’negro worship” and you claimed birtherism wasn’t about race.

    Can you acknowledge your error?

  85. avatar
    justlw March 21, 2013 at 9:26 pm #

    I think this was Gabe, even though he made it look like Rickey said it because apparently Gabe cannot deal with the most fundamentally simple feature of a blog site: does Judge Lind’s decision say the Presidency, no. It says the President, meaning who other than the President.

    She does not use the word “embarrassment” in reference to the president. She uses it in reference to the concept of “multifarious pronouncements by various departments.” That means “different people saying different things,” by the way.

    What she is saying is that different people saying different things will get in the way of political decisions properly staying in the realm of the political functionaries of our government, and will get in the way of the military’s ability to “maintain good order and discipline.”

    What she said does not have any meaning even close to “embarrassing the president.” It has everything to do with people like the Blue Falcon disobeying orders on the pretext of disagreeing with a decision that was in the realm of Congress, not in the realm of his chain of command.

  86. avatar
    James M March 21, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame:
    “Birthers”, you liberals are so funny.

    From the other side we don’t refer to ourselves as “birthers”. That is so 3rd grade.

    When are you guys going to grow up?Get out of you parent’s basement?Earn a real living instead of negro worship?

    On how many web forums can you say something like “negro worship” and retain your posting privileges afterward?

  87. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2013 at 9:53 pm #

    Gabe:

    ”Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.

    She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the President”.

    does Judge Lind’s decision say the Presidency, no. It says the President, meaning who other than the President.

    You obviously never read Judge Lind’s decision because you have grossly mischaracterized it. That’s what happens when you rely on another person’s spin instead of doing your own research.

    Here is what Judge Lind actually said about embarrassment:

    1. She refers to “the embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” (p. 9)

    2. She goes on to say “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.” (p. 9)

    And that’s it. She is saying that a court-martial is the wrong place to resolve a political question. Nowhere else in the order does she use the words “embarrass” or “embarrassment.” Nowhere does she suggest that anything would be embarrassing to “the President.”

    http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploads/Lakin-ruling.pdf

    So the ball is in your court. Can you now acknowledge that you don’t know what you are talking about?

  88. avatar
    BillTheCat March 21, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

    Gabe:
    If there is a college programpossibly a Certificate at the end of the course, for putting “Spin” on a subject?Mostof the replies to my post on the tribulation of Lt. Col. Lakin and Obama’s daddy would have the Certificate awarded as, OJT credit to the writers. With an invite to teach the course.

    Reading these replies, is somewhat akin to a drowning person at the beach fighting the lifeguards as they attempt a rescue, happens all the time.

    Ugh, the stupid, it hurts.

    /headdesk

  89. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2013 at 10:02 pm #

    James M: On how many web forums can you say something like “negro worship” and retain your posting privileges afterward?

    It’s time that Doc locked the door on that racist cretin.

  90. avatar
    gorefan March 21, 2013 at 10:15 pm #

    Gabe: somewhat akin to a drowning person at the beach fighting the lifeguards as they attempt a rescue, happens all the time.

    So stop fighting.

  91. avatar
    James M March 21, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

    donna: James M: it’s a relevant concern.

    ONLY FOR people who believe we have a separate class of citizens for people who aspire to be president

    It is _relevant_, not necessarily _valid_. Relevant because he is a politician campaigning for office, and his constituents include birthers. He would be foolish not to consider the “issue”.

  92. avatar
    Northland10 March 21, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: When are you guys going to grow up? Get out of you parent’s basement? Earn a real living instead of negro worship?

    Misereatur vestri omnipotens Deus.

  93. avatar
    SluggoJD March 21, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame:
    “Birthers”, you liberals are so funny.

    From the other side we don’t refer to ourselves as “birthers”. That is so 3rd grade.

    When are you guys going to grow up?Get out of you parent’s basement?Earn a real living instead of negro worship?

    Doc?

    “Negro worship?”

    You allow this trash, from an intellectually challenged piece of poop?

  94. avatar
    donna March 21, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

    James M: He would be foolish not to consider the “issue”.

    obama was born in hawaii and spent 99% of his life in the US – he could have been born here and adopted with biological parents unknown – he could have been born here by in vitro fertilization with the sperm and egg donors unknown – he could have been dropped on hospital steps in nyc and pronounced minutes old – he could have fallen off of a turnip truck in kansas and pronounced an hour old – he could have been born here and his rapist father is unknown –

    only someone “foolish” would consider it to be an “issue” in any of those scenarios – he was born here

    “his constituents” didn’t have to vote for him – birthers are irrelevant, they didn’t have to vote for him

    as politicians, have jindal, rubio and cruz considered “the issue”? they seem to be steamrolling ahead and one wasn’t born here

    birthers have lost in court 337 times, “including 245 times in administrative or circuit courts, 70 times in appellate courts, and 22 times at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    no fewer than 10 court cases have rendered him a “natural born citizen”

    there is NO “ISSUE”

  95. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

    donna: there is NO “ISSUE”

    Yabbut!

    “Teach the controversy issue!”

  96. avatar
    Thinker March 22, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    Ted Cruz has consistently deflected questions about running for the presidency. No politician admits he/she is interested in a higher office mere weeks after getting into his/her current office. Sen. Cruz is going to continue to avoid any questions about his qualifications to be president for at least two more years. (One caveat: Sen. Cruz has shown himself to be uncouth. He may decide to start running for President sooner than a typical first term Senator.) But right now, he is busy convincing people that being the Junior Senator from Texas is his dream job.

    James M: It is _relevant_, not necessarily _valid_.Relevant because he is a politician campaigning for office, and his constituents include birthers.He would be foolish not to consider the “issue”.

  97. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 22, 2013 at 1:22 am #

    James M: On how many web forums can you say something like “negro worship” and retain your posting privileges afterward?

    OK, white worship then. Happy now?

  98. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 22, 2013 at 1:24 am #

    SluggoJD: Doc?

    “Negro worship?”

    You allow this trash, from an intellectually challenged piece of poop?

    This is about “intellect”. I thought liberals were only into name calling. You know “birthers”, “racist”, “homophobes” and the like!

    If you want intellect go to a patriot board fer cry’n out loud!

  99. avatar
    James M March 22, 2013 at 1:55 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: OK, white worship then.Happy now?

    No I am not “Happy”, not with your behavior on this forum, or the childish and inappropriate impression you make in your posts. I want you gone.

  100. avatar
    James M March 22, 2013 at 2:00 am #

    donna: obama was born in hawaii

    I was never referring to President Obama. I’m thinking of the specuative and hypothetical foreign-born candidate for 2016, e.g., Rubio, Jindal or Cruz. Even if they don’t say a word about it, they would be foolish to not be prepared for the whole “birther thing” to some degree.

  101. avatar
    Gabe March 22, 2013 at 6:21 am #

    justlw: She does not use the word “embarrassment” in reference to the president.She uses it in reference to the concept of “multifarious pronouncements by various departments.” That means “different people saying different things,” by the way.

    What she is saying is that different people saying different things will get in the way of political decisions properly staying in the realm of the political functionaries of our government, and will get in the way of the military’s ability to “maintain good order and discipline.”

    What she said does not have any meaning even close to “embarrassing the president.”It has everything to do with people like the Blue Falcon disobeying orders on the pretext of disagreeing with a decision that was in the realm of Congress, not in the realm of his chain of command.

    Out comes the spin master mightier than an F5 Tornado, able to spin the words of anyone in a single stroke of the pen!

    The Judge said what she said, it is written, if one like the spin masters want to interpret or read into her meaning, what can one say, other than there it is in black and white.

  102. avatar
    The Magic M March 22, 2013 at 6:24 am #

    justlw: She does not use the word “embarrassment” in reference to the president.

    I wonder how Gabe reacts to the question how he can be “honestly” “after the truth” when he, like every other birther, spouts obvious falsehoods and easily debunked lies in every other sentence.
    It suffices to look at how birthers mischaracterize statements in court and by the court:

    * The “Obama’s attorney said in court his BC is a forgery” meme
    * The “Judge … denied discovery because it might embarrass Obama” meme
    * The “Judge … dismissed the case because it was twittered” meme
    * The “Judge … used precedent from a court case in a movie” meme
    * The “No court has said Obama is an NBC” meme
    * The “Obama is in contempt of court” meme
    * The “Court reporter falsified transcript” meme
    * …

    Why, dear Gabe, dear “Shame on Liberals Shame” etc., why do people who are “patriots” who “want the truth” lie, and lie, and lie again so very much? Is it “the end justifies the means”? If so, why aren’t you at least so honest as to admit it?

    See, this is why the sane world doesn’t take people like you seriously and why you can’t get a following among people with triple-digit IQ’s. Even the most appealing conspiracy theory is so full of open lies that people with proper common sense turn away from it in disgust.
    On the other hand, real patriots with real legitimate concerns know that they don’t touch lies and unsourced unproven allegations with a ten-foot pole because that would taint their good cause forever.
    That’s why people who didn’t want GWB re-elected didn’t take the “he’s one of the lizard people” route.

  103. avatar
    Majority Will March 22, 2013 at 6:52 am #

    The Magic M: I wonder how Gabe reacts tothe question how he can be “honestly” “after the truth” when he, like every other birther, spouts obvious falsehoods and easily debunked lies in every other sentence.
    It suffices to look at how birthers mischaracterize statements in court and by the court:

    * The “Obama’s attorney said in court his BC is a forgery” meme
    * The “Judge … denied discovery because it might embarrass Obama” meme
    * The “Judge … dismissed the case because it was twittered” meme
    * The “Judge … used precedent from a court case in a movie” meme
    * The “No court has said Obama is an NBC” meme
    * The “Obama is in contempt of court” meme
    * The “Court reporter falsified transcript” meme
    * …

    Why, dear Gabe, dear “Shame on Liberals Shame” etc., why do people who are “patriots” who “want the truth” lie, and lie, and lie again so very much? Is it “the end justifies the means”? If so, why aren’t you at least so honest as to admit it?

    See, this is why the sane world doesn’t take people like you seriously and why you can’t get a following among people with triple-digit IQ’s. Even the most appealing conspiracy theory is so full of open lies that people with proper common sense turn away from it in disgust.
    On the other hand, real patriots with real legitimate concerns know that they don’t touch lies and unsourced unproven allegations with a ten-foot pole because that would taint their good cause forever.
    That’s why people who didn’t want GWB re-elected didn’t take the “he’s one of the lizard people” route.

    These pigheaded morons obviously don’t mind embarrassing themselves. 😉

    Fun fact:

    The verb cleave is a contranym with a homograph that is its antonym.

    Cleave: to join and to separate.

  104. avatar
    Northland10 March 22, 2013 at 7:45 am #

    Gabe:

    Gabe, when quoting someone, start typing after the part that says. /blockquote >. As an alternative, you can actually type before the <blockquote cite… part as Doc does. This will separate your comment from the one you are quoting.

  105. avatar
    Paper March 22, 2013 at 8:43 am #

    Indeed, it is written. There it is, as you say, in black and white. Of course, it doesn’t say what you think, but you are correct, it is written.

    Rickey has already quoted it for you and provided a link.

    Here it is again for you. Try reading it this time.

    See the section labeled “Conclusions of Law,” items 10.(5) and 13, on page 9, at:

    http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploads/Lakin-ruling.pdf

    “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

    Gabe:
    The Judge said what she said, it is written, if one like the spin masters want to interpret or read into her meaning, what can one say, other than there it is in black and white.

  106. avatar
    Majority Will March 22, 2013 at 9:35 am #

    Paper:
    Indeed, it is written.There it is, as you say, in black and white.Of course, it doesn’t say what you think, but you are correct, it is written.

    Rickey has already quoted it for you and provided a link.

    Here it is again for you.Try reading it this time.

    See the section labeled “Conclusions of Law,” items 10.(5) and 13, on page 9, at:

    http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploads/Lakin-ruling.pdf

    “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

    As you know all too well, some birther bigots epitomize willful ignorance.

  107. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2013 at 11:32 am #

    Gabe: Out comes the spin master mightier than an F5 Tornado, able to spin the words of anyone in a single stroke of the pen!
    The Judge said what she said, it is written, if one like the spin masters want to interpret or read into her meaning, what can one say, other than there it is in black and white.

    The core of your problem is you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The term “embarassment” is used as a legal term of art. The Court in Lakin is actually quoting one of the seminal Supreme Court case on the subject of poltical question, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). The exact quote from Baker v. Carr is:

    “It is apparent that several formulations which vary slightly according to the settings in which the questions arise may describe a political question, although each has one or more elements which identify it as essentially a function of the separation of powers. Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”

    You will note that very last clause, “potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” Look familiar? If you bother to read the whole opinion, you’ll note there was that the case had nothing to do with subject matter that would “embarass” the President in the common use of the term. Of course, all this would actually require you to learn something before spouting off long debunked birther b.s. Or, you could just put your hands over your ears, and act like your sad attempts to deny reality and childish attempts to deflect the truth that is is you who are actually working overtime trying to spin away the truth will actually score points with anyone but the most abjectly clueless.

  108. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

    Gabe:

    The Judge said what she said, it is written, if one like the spin masters want to interpret or read into her meaning, what can one say, other than there it is in black and white.

    You have once again demonstrated that your are a liar who has no interest in the truth. Here is what you said:

    She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the President”.
    does Judge Lind’s decision say the Presidency, no. It says the President, meaning who other than the President.

    Subsequently you were provided with links to Judge Lind’s decision. She clearly was not referring to the President. She was enunciating a long-standing legal principle that military courts cannot be used to resolve political questions or controversies.

    Instead of acknowledging your error, you double down on your mendacity. Congratulations.

  109. avatar
    Kiwiwriter March 22, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

    To “Shame on Liberals Shame:’

    “James M: On how many web forums can you say something like “negro worship” and retain your posting privileges afterward?

    OK, white worship then. Happy now?”

    When you behave like a reasonable adult, instead of being an immature, screechy, whiny, ignorant racist….then we’ll be happy.

  110. avatar
    Arthur March 22, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    J’accuse, Ted Cruz.

    If you’re familiar with Sylvia Plath, you’ll get the reference.

  111. avatar
    Gabe March 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm #

    Rickey, Jim, Justlw,Majority Will and so many other,either all of you are vying for Jay Carney’s job or are taking night courses from him.
    Mostly you present yourselves as a bunch of juvenile adult thinkers void of any sincere love of country! A decorated solider dedicated to helping others, was thrown under the bus by your fearless leader and you put the spin on what Judge Lind said about embarrassing the President, she meant just as she said “embarrass”, as blinded as Lind is, how could she possibly understand a deeper philosophical meaning as the spin masters are trying to pass off as an intelligent explanation.

  112. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

    Gabe:
    Rickey, Jim, Justlw,Majority Will and so many other,either all of you are vying for Jay Carney’s job or are taking night courses from him.
    Mostly you present yourselves as a bunch of juvenile adult thinkers void of any sincere love of country! A decorated solider dedicated to helping others, was thrown under the bus by your fearless leader and you put the spin on what Judge Lind said about embarrassing the President, she meant just as she said “embarrass”, as blinded as Lind is, how could she possibly understand a deeper philosophical meaning as the spin masters are trying to pass off as an intelligent explanation.

    Benedict Arnold was a dedicated soldier before he decided to turn traitor.

    Lakin betrayed his unit when he refused to deploy, leaving his comrades in the lurch as the Army had to scramble to find a last-minute replacement for him. He threw himself under the bus. The only thing which he deserves is our contempt.

    As for love of country, I was a decorated sailor while in the U.S. Navy. And I have one thing which Lakin will never have – an Honorable Discharge certificate.

  113. avatar
    Gabe March 22, 2013 at 3:07 pm #

    Rickey: Benedict Arnold was a dedicated soldier before he decided to turn traitor.

    Lakin betrayed his unit when he refused to deploy, leaving his comrades in the lurch as the Army had to scramble to find a last-minute replacement for him. He threw himself under the bus. The only thing which he deserves is our contempt.

    As for love of country, I was a decorated sailor while in the U.S. Navy. And I have an Honorable Discharge certificate.

    Rickey: Benedict Arnold was a dedicated soldier before he decided to turn traitor.

    Lakin betrayed his unit when he refused to deploy, leaving his comrades in the lurch as the Army had to scramble to find a last-minute replacement for him. He threw himself under the bus. The only thing which he deserves is our contempt.

    As for love of country, I was a decorated sailor while in the U.S. Navy. And I have one thing which Lakin will never have – an Honorable Discharge certificate.

    Does your stars and stripes flag when you display it have the stars going forward or the stripes, like most police department wear it? I would tend to guess the stripes are going forward.

    For what it is worth, I have a (draftees) Honorable Discharge also active duty and reserve duty, the one I’m most proud of is the draftees, because draftees were classifed as AUS(Army of the United States). but in your world of opaque vision and defense of, the current regime veterans are classified as terrorist.
    So “Benedict” how does it feel to have that label?

  114. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: OK, white worship then.

    That’s the awesome thing about Obama: we can do both at the same time!

  115. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2013 at 3:22 pm #

    Gabe: The Judge said what she said, it is written, if one like the spin masters want to interpret or read into her meaning, what can one say, other than there it is in black and white.

    Very well, then. What did she say? Start with a direct quote from what she wrote, please, rather than something you heard somewhere.

  116. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

    Rickey: As for love of country, I was a decorated sailor while in the U.S. Navy. And I have one thing which Lakin will never have – an Honorable Discharge certificate.

    Thank you for your service to our country, Rickey.

  117. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

    Gabe: [operates quote function with eyes closed, apparently]

    Good lord, he’s getting worse at it.

  118. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

    Gabe: For what it is worth, I have a (draftees) Honorable Discharge also active duty and reserve duty,

    So you’re a step ahead of the Blue Falcon as well. Props for that. You quoted Rickey’s description of what Lakin did, twice. Did you actually read it either time?

  119. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 22, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

    Rickey: As for love of country, I was a decorated sailor while in the U.S. Navy. And I have one thing which Lakin will never have – an Honorable Discharge certificate.

    —-

    Thank you for your service!

  120. avatar
    Scientist March 22, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    Rickey: As for love of country, I was a decorated sailor while in the U.S. Navy. And I have one thing which Lakin will never have – an Honorable Discharge certificate.

    And I bet you never saw, nor thought to ask for, a birth certificate from any of the Presidents in office while you served…

  121. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

    Gabe:
    Rickey, Jim, Justlw,Majority Will and so many other,either all of you are vying for Jay Carney’s job or are taking night courses from him.
    Mostly you present yourselves as a bunch of juvenile adult thinkers void of any sincere love of country! A decorated solider dedicated to helping others, was thrown under the bus by your fearless leader and you put the spin on what Judge Lind said about embarrassing the President, she meant just as she said “embarrass”, as blinded as Lind is, how could she possibly understand a deeper philosophical meaning as the spin masters are trying to pass off as an intelligent explanation.

    Love of country has nothing to do with anything here. The topic of the conversation, from which you have strayed, is whether Cruz is a natural born citizen. You are on the record as not knowing the definition of that term is, as generally accepted by the legal community as a whole.

    On a secondary level, you have also shown that you have no idea that legal terms mean specific things, particularly when a judge is quoting very specific legal precedent. You can deflect, cover your ears, and stomp your feet all you want. It doesn’t change the very clear reality, that you should not make comments about things that you are clearly ignorant of. At no time does Judge Lind say anything about embarassing the President, but rather quotes directly from Baker v. Carr. You’re right. There is no spin, or deeper philosophical meaning. It is using the exact words used by the United States Supreme Court in explaining the political question doctrine. Sadly for us all, you aren’t even intelligent enough to grasp that.

    Finally, being a veteran of the PGW I, and unlike Lakin, honorably discharged, I fail to see how abandoning your unit when they are being deployed shows love of country. He refused to follow a lawful order. For that he was punished. He should feel blessed we no longer shoot people for going AWOL in a time of war.

  122. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2013 at 4:05 pm #

    Gabe: but in your world of opaque vision and defense of, the current regime veterans are classified as terrorist.

    Yeah….still making more b.s. up out of whole cloth…what next? Perhaps that the president drinks pureed aborted fetuses?

  123. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

    Gabe: For what it is worth, I have a (draftees) Honorable Discharge also active duty and reserve duty, the one I’m most proud of is the draftees, because draftees were classifed as AUS(Army of the United States). but in your world of opaque vision and defense of, the current regime veterans are classified as terrorist.

    I cheered when the Navy Seals under the “current regime” took out Osama bin Laden.

    How about you?

  124. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2013 at 4:39 pm #

    Scientist: And I bet you never saw, nor thought to ask for, a birth certificate from any ofthe Presidents in office while youserved…

    And I served under both a Democrat (LBJ) and a Republican (Nixon). A real solider or sailor doesn’t let political considerations get in the way of performing one’s duties.

  125. avatar
    Gabe March 22, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    JoZeppy: Yeah….still making more b.s. up out of whole cloth…what next?Perhaps that the president drinks pureed aborted fetuses?

    Finally, being a veteran of the PGW I, and unlike Lakin, honorably discharged, I fail to see how abandoning your unit when they are being deployed shows love of country.He refused to follow a lawful order.For that he was punished.He should feel blessed we no longer shoot people for going AWOL in a time of war.

    Another hero another day! Well Pilgrim was the order lawful, depends if the President is lawful.
    Veteran classification was not given to PGW1, serviceman was.
    Veteran classifcation was given WWII through Vietnam then ended.

    Guys like you are probably children of the Vietnam era draft dodging , anti-war movement, who use to call the soldiers “baby Killers” and ask the soldiers , “how many babies did you kill today”, one war weary Vet. answered “only as many as I could eat”.
    If the President does drink the juice you mentioned, it is because of people like yourself who think Planned Parenthood is a humanitarian ideal.

  126. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

    Gabe: Another hero another day! Well Pilgrim was the order lawful, depends if the President is lawful.
    Veteran classification was not given to PGW1, serviceman was.
    Veteran classifcation was given WWII through Vietnam then ended.

    Funny, the VA seems to disagree with you…but then again, you have yet to get anything right here, why start now?

    Gabe: Guys like you are probably children of the Vietnam era draft dodging , anti-war movement, who use to call the soldiers “baby Killers” and ask the soldiers , “how many babies did you kill today”, one war weary Vet. answered “only as many as I could eat”.

    Keep that perfect track record of being universally wrong.

    Gabe: If the President does drink the juice you mentioned, it is because of people like yourself who think Planned Parenthood is a humanitarian ideal.

    And hey, why not wrap it all up in a fit of general stupidity. You’re going for the gold, buddy.

  127. avatar
    Majority Will March 22, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

    “But let me tell you something, folks: You can’t fix stupid. There’s not a pill you can take; there’s not a class you can go to. Stupid is forever.”
    – Ron White

    More proof WND causes permanent and severe brain damage.

  128. avatar
    Daniel March 22, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

    Gabe: Well Pilgrim was the order lawful, depends if the President is lawful.

    Having some small expertise in military law, myself, having served as a combat officer for many years, I can tell you the same thing as all the experts told Lakin the Blue Falcon.

    Orders are issued from the immediate authority. The immediate authority derives ultimately from the office of the POTUS, but orders come from the immediate superior officer. The soldier is bound to obey the lawful orders of his superior officer. A lawful order is one which does not contravene an existing law. No where in military law is it held that one may refuse an order on the off chance that someone, somewhere up in the chain of command, may be holding a position he’s not entitled to. An order from a superior officer is valid on it’s face, despite the chain of command.

    If the enemy nuked Washington DC, and the entire succession order was killed, would you expect that every soldier would have to stop moving because there was no POTUS to issue orders and no POTUS means no authority? That’s exactly the consequences of what you and numbnuts Lakin are telling us.

    Yeah you apparently didn’t think it through either.

  129. avatar
    Gabe March 22, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    Daniel: Having some small expertise in military law, myself, having served as a combat officer for many years, I can tell you the same thing as all the experts told Lakin the Blue Falcon.

    Orders are issued from the immediate authority. The immediate authority derives ultimately from the office of the POTUS, but orders come from the immediate superior officer. The soldier is bound to obey the lawful orders of his superior officer. A lawful order is one which does not contravene an existing law. No where in military law is it held that one may refuse an order on the off chance that someone, somewhere up in the chain of command, may be holding a positionhe’s not entitled to. An order froma superior officer is valid on it’s face, despite the chain of command.

    If the enemy nuked Washington DC, and the entire succession order was killed, would you expect that every soldier would have to stop moving because there was no POTUS to issue orders and no POTUS means no authority?That’s exactly the consequences of what you and numbnuts Lakin are telling us.

    Yeah you apparently didn’t think it through either.

    The problem as I see it,is, this superior attitude that yourself and that maggot JoZeppy and a few others have in their replies, you both resort to name calling and other derogatory remarks as an Officer as you say you are you take an Oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, this is where you fail your Oath and call someone like Lt. Col. Lakin what you called him, you fail your Oath by disparaging remarks against those who wish to question what is happening in the USA concerning the executive branch, you accept the premise of no standing by the Judges against the people who try and bring the questions they have about the qualifications of your leader to be the leader, we live in the US of A, the government works for the people or at least it is supposed to, thought with people like you spinning the truth with your chest full of medals it seems the people are subjects of the Government.
    Lt. Lakin was following his conscience as an Officer and a Gentleman, can you say the same for yourself after your comments about his actions?

  130. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 22, 2013 at 7:16 pm #

    Gabe: as blinded as Lind is, how could she possibly understand a deeper philosophical meaning as the spin masters are trying to pass off as an intelligent explanation.

    The “political question doctrine” that Judge Lind cites is taught to every single first year law student in every accredited law school in the country–in the required course, “Constitutional Law”. It is a longstanding, fundamental legal doctrine–not something that requires understanding of deep philosophical meaning and spin.

  131. avatar
    American Mzungu March 22, 2013 at 7:16 pm #

    Gabe: The problem as I see it,is, this superior attitude that yourself and that maggot JoZeppy and a few others have in their replies, you both resort to name calling and other derogatory remarks as an Officer as you say you are you take an Oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, this is where you fail your Oath and call someone like Lt. Col. Lakin what you called him, you fail your Oath by disparaging remarks against those who wish to question what is happening in the USA concerning the executive branch, you accept the premise of no standing by the Judges against the people who try and bring the questions they have about the qualifications of your leader to be the leader, we live in the US of A, the government works for the people or at least it is supposed to, thought with people like you spinning the truth with your chest full of medals it seems the people are subjects of the Government.

    Would someone care to diagram this sentence? My 10th grade English teacher taught me to deal with simple sentences but did not prepare me for the density of birther talk.

  132. avatar
    MattR March 22, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

    Gabe would be wise to heed the words of Robert Plant

    There’s a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
    ‘Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.

  133. avatar
    Daniel March 22, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    Gabe: that maggot JoZeppy ….resort to name calling and other derogatory remarks

    Do you have shares in an Irony meter manufacturing company?

  134. avatar
    James M March 22, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

    Gabe: was the order lawful [?]

    The order that Convict Lakin refused was a standing order issued before President Obama took office. Convict Lakin pleaded guilty to the charge, so I can only conclude that he too considers the order to have been lawful.

  135. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    American Mzungu: Would someone care to diagram this sentence?

    Gave it my best shot.

  136. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    Gabe: Lt. Lakin was following his conscience as an Officer and a Gentleman

    No. He was following the voices emanating from his fillings, and was egged on by the likes of you, putting his fellow soldiers at risk and making his family’s future a shambles.

    Be proud.

  137. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2013 at 7:52 pm #

    Gabe: The problem as I see it,is, this superior attitude that yourself and that maggot JoZeppy and a few others have in their replies, you both resort to name calling and other derogatoryremarks as an Officer as you say you are you take an Oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, this is where you fail your Oath and call someone like Lt. Col. Lakin what you called him, you fail your Oath by disparaging remarks against those who wish to question what is happening in the USA concerning the executive branch, you accept the premise of no standing by the Judges against the people who try and bring the questions they have about the qualifications of your leader to be the leader, we live in the US of A, the government works for the people or at least it is supposed to, thought with people like you spinning the truth with your chest full of medals it seems the people are subjects of the Government.

    Is English your first language? Seriously, the above is near gibberish. Furthermore…it’s not a question of name calling and superiority. It’s a matter that you are just about universally wrong in everything you have posted (and of course you had to add the question of standing to your list of things you don’t understand but want to post on). I’m sorry having people point out that you don’t have a bloody clue about what you’re posting makes you feel inferior, but that’s your personal problem, not ours. Perhaps if you read up a little before hand, it might help.

    Gabe: Lt. Lakin was following his conscience as an Officer and a Gentleman, can you say the same for yourself after your comments about his actions?

    Unfortunately for Mr. Lakin, he didn’t follow the advice of his superior officer who told him exactly what would happen. Too bad Mr. Lakin didn’t actually read up on what constitutes a lawful order before tossing his career to the wind. Too bad Mr. Lakin chose to listen to birthers who were perfectly willing to sacrifice his career over what the state of Hawaii said regarding the President’s records. There is no honor in being a sucker and fool. If you want to call that following your conscience, that is your choice. I call it being a sucker listening to easily disproven moon-bat conspiracy theories.

  138. avatar
    Daniel March 22, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    Gabe: you take an Oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, this is where you fail your Oath and call someone like Lt. Col. Lakin what you called him, you fail your Oath by disparaging remarks against those who wish to question what is happening in the USA concerning the executive branch, you accept the premise of no standing by the Judges against the people who try and bring the questions they have about the qualifications of your leader to be the leader, we live in the US of A, the government works for the people or at least it is supposed to, thought with people like you spinning the truth with your chest full of medals it seems the people are subjects of the Government.

    It is precisely because of my oath to uphold the Constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I oppose birthers. Birthers are the very definition of an enemy to the Constitution, domestic.

    The problem is not that you, or Lakin, had questions, or even that, having been given the answers you choose to disbelieve beyond all reason. The problem with birthers like you is that you are seditious in your supposed disbelief, that you hide your prejudice under a glamour of false patriotism, that you would piss on the Constitution rather than see Obama take his rightful place as the duly elected President of this country, by the Will of We the People.

    In your case you’re just a seditious anti-American. In Lakin’s case he used his prejudice to opt out of obeying a lawful order that had nothing to do with his delusions, and in so doing he screwed over his brothers and sister in arms, hence the Blue Falcon. The court was merciful to him. He should have gotten much worse.

    Gabe:Lt. Lakin was following his conscience as an Officer and a Gentleman, can you say the same for yourself after your comments about his actions?

    Lakin was following a prejudicial delusion he had no right to use as a reason to disobey a lawful command. All of he peers and his superiors, including those who were truly trying to help him not throw away his career, and every military law expert he spoke to, told him the exact same thing. Unfortunately for his family and his buddies, he did the same thing every birther does. He decided to ignore the advice of people who know, and follow his seditious and disloyal delusions to their obvious out come. When it finally cam time to pay the piper, he had the gall to act surprised when he got what was coming to him, and now he spends his time dripping and moaning all over the internet to fools like you, who share his hatred of America.

  139. avatar
    James M March 22, 2013 at 7:58 pm #

    Gabe: you take an Oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, this is where you fail your Oath and call someone like Lt. Col. Lakin what you called him

    Are you suggesting that the sitting President of the United States is an enemy? If so, are you saying that he is a _foreign_ enemy or a _domestic_ one?

    Are you planning to do anything specific to defend our nation against this enemy?

  140. avatar
    donna March 22, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

    J.D. Sue

    they take the “political question doctrine” and “embarrassing” used in law and twists them to fit their agendas

    in corsi’s book re lakin, he said the judge denied discovery because it would be an “Embarrassment” to the President

    Military Judge Tells Lakin: Eligibility Evidence Could be an “Embarrassment” to the President

    from lind’s decision

    10. The political question doctrine is based on the separation of powers in the three branches of government. The seminal case setting forth when courts should adopt the political question doctrine and preclude judicial review is Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 18 (1962). Under Baker, the court should preclude judicial review of a political question upon a finding of one or more of the following factors:

    (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
    (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
    (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy detenmination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
    (4) The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government; or
    (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made or the embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

    13. In the context of this Article 1 court-martial for a service member accused of disobeying orders to challenge the constitutional qualifications of the President to hold office, there is also an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political policy decision already made. The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces .

  141. avatar
    Gabe March 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm #

    Daniel: It is precisely because of my oath to uphold the Constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I oppose birthers. Birthers are the very definition of an enemy to the Constitution, domestic.

    The problem is not that you, or Lakin, had questions, or even that, having been given the answers you choose to disbelieve beyond all reason. The problem with birthers like you is that you are seditious in your supposed disbelief, that you hide your prejudice under a glamour of false patriotism, that you would piss on the Constitution rather than see Obama take his rightful place as the duly elected President of this country, by the Will of We the People.

    In your case you’re just a seditious anti-American. In Lakin’s case he used his prejudice to opt out of obeying a lawful order that had nothing to do with his delusions, and in so doing he screwed over his brothers and sister in arms, hence the Blue Falcon. The court was merciful to him. He should have gotten much worse.

    Lakin was following a prejudicial delusion he had no right to use as a reason to disobey a lawful command. All of he peers and his superiors, including those who were truly trying to help him not throw away his career, and every military law expert he spoke to, told him the exact same thing. Unfortunately for his family and his buddies, he did the same thing every birther does. He decided to ignore the advice of people who know, and follow his seditious and disloyal delusions to their obvious out come. When it finally cam time to pay the piper, he had the gall to act surprised when he got what was coming to him, and now he spends his time dripping and moaning all over the internet to fools like you, who share his hatred of America.

    If BS was fuel you would be a raging fire, calling people anti-American and being seditious, birthers and what ever else suits your mentality, if anyone is being seditious and anti-American, it is you and you comrades, comrade! Who rattle their cages ever louder, when one of you start rattling your spin of deception. You are good in a gang identifying with one another, though your strength of conviction would wane quickly if alone.

    Time will tell, about what is talked about in this battle of words, the war on what is true about the questions, We the People, have, is yet to be decided. Even though the Republic for which we stand could be loss because of people who foam at the mouth in their delusions as some of these post point out.

  142. avatar
    Sef March 22, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

    Wasn’t there another birther recently who had a hard time mastering the art of quoting on this forum?

  143. avatar
    Keith March 22, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

    justlw: Gave it my best shot.

    That was a rather intellectual Rick Roll if ever I’ve seen one. 😎

  144. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

    Gabe: We the People, have, is yet to be decided

    Actually, We the People have decided….twice in fact. In record numbers.

  145. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

    Gabe: people who foam at the mouth in their delusions

    And another perfectly good shipment of irony meters ruined.

  146. avatar
    Keith March 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

    Daniel: When it finally cam time to pay the piper, he had the gall to act surprised when he got what was coming to him, and now he spends his time dripping and moaning all over the internet to fools like you, who share his hatred of America.

    Don’t hold back Daniel, tell him what you REALLY think.

  147. avatar
    Majority Will March 22, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    Enough of this fool.

  148. avatar
    Northland10 March 22, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    Gave needs to look back on this site and see the posts by Col. Sullivan and Phil Cave. These are actual military attorneys with impressive resumes. Unfortunately, Gabe does not care about such things as the actual law or even being an honorable American.

  149. avatar
    American Mzungu March 22, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    Gabe: If BS was fuel you would be a raging fire, calling people anti-American and being seditious, birthers and what ever else suits your mentality, if anyone is being seditious and anti-American, it is you and you comrades, comrade! Who rattle their cages ever louder, when one of you start rattling your spin of deception. You are good in a gang identifying with one another, though your strength of conviction would wane quickly if alone.
    Time will tell, about what is talked about in this battle of words, the war on what is true about the questions, We the People, have, is yet to be decided. Even though the Republic for which we stand could be loss because of people who foam at the mouth in their delusions as some of these post point out.

    Could someone fluent in birtherspeak please translate this for me?

  150. avatar
    Northland10 March 22, 2013 at 8:52 pm #

    American Mzungu: Could someone fluent in birtherspeak please translate this for me?

    Obama bad.. Y’all are poopy heads.

  151. avatar
    Sef March 22, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

    American Mzungu: someone fluent in birtherspeak

    Oxymoron?

  152. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

    Gabe: as an Officer as you say you are you take an Oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic

    If, as you claim, you served in the U.S. Army, you should know that individual officers and enlisteds do not get to decide who their enemies are. If it were otherwise the military would descend into chaos.

    Terry Lakin had no authority to conclude that President Obama is an enemy or even a possible enemy.

    And. as has been pointed out, Lakin pleaded GUILTY at his court-martial. He admitted and acknowledged that he disobeyed lawful orders.

    Thankfully, I never had to serve with any officers or enlisted personnel who bailed out on their comrades.

  153. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2013 at 9:21 pm #

    James M:

    Are you planning to do anything specific to defend our nation against this enemy?

    Gabe is a keyboard kommando. He can’t figure out how to use the quote function, so I’m guessing that he is not particularly proficient with a weapon.

  154. avatar
    American Mzungu March 22, 2013 at 9:28 pm #

    I’m sorry for asking for a translation, but I wanted to make sure Gabe had not given the definitive answer to the question: Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

  155. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 22, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

    American Mzungu: Could someone fluent in birtherspeak please translate this for me?

    Ever see a dog bark at a mirror?

  156. avatar
    gorefan March 23, 2013 at 1:07 am #

    American Mzungu: Would someone care to diagram this sentence?

    We don’t have a big enough chalk board.

  157. avatar
    aarrgghh March 23, 2013 at 1:25 am #

    American Mzungu: Would someone care to diagram this sentence?

    done.

  158. avatar
    American Mzungu March 23, 2013 at 9:52 am #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Ever see a dog bark at a mirror?

    An apt analogy.

    I had a male German shepherd. The first reaction was to laugh at the situation. That didn’t slow down the dog at all. The next step was to talk to the dog, but I discovered it was a waste of time to “explain” to the dog that the reflection was not a threat. The easiest thing was to somehow get the dog out of the room, not always the easiest job with a dog that thinks it is protecting you. If I didn’t need to be in the room I’d leave and the dog would eventually stop barking.

    How have you handled such a situation?

  159. avatar
    Northland10 March 23, 2013 at 10:11 am #

    American Mzungu:
    I’m sorry for asking for a translation, but I wanted to make sure Gabe had not given the definitive answer to the question: Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

    Ted Cruz is not part of Gabe’s obsession. For him, it is not about being NBC. It is about Obama. He cannot discuss the issue in regards to Cruz because he lacks context.

    With Gabe and some other Birthers’ database, the Primary Key is Obama, not NBC.

  160. avatar
    misha marinsky March 23, 2013 at 10:30 am #

    American Mzungu: How have you handled such a situation?

    I talk to Angel in Yiddish. Works every time.

    Of course, she’s a Jewish Afghan. I gave her a Bark Mitzvah.

  161. avatar
    misha marinsky March 23, 2013 at 10:38 am #

    Gabe: We the People, have, is yet to be decided. Even though the Republic for which we stand could be loss because of people who foam at the mouth in their delusions as some of these post point out.

    It’s called Thorazine. Look into it.

  162. avatar
    misha marinsky March 23, 2013 at 10:41 am #

    James M: Are you planning to do anything specific to defend our nation against this enemy?

    Yeah, Gabe is going to throw his keyboard at the “enemy.”

  163. avatar
    misha marinsky March 23, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    Gabe: that maggot JoZeppy

    From the “mouth” of an Amoeba.

  164. avatar
    misha marinsky March 23, 2013 at 11:18 am #

    Gabe: A decorated solider dedicated to helping others, was thrown under the bus by your fearless leader and you put the spin on what Judge Lind said about embarrassing the President

    You are clinically insane.

  165. avatar
    misha marinsky March 23, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    Northland10: Misereatur vestri omnipotens Deus

    As a Jewish student educated by Jesuits, I want to thank you. This time, no Borscht Belt quips.

    To Gabe, SOLS and their ilk:

    Obama facilitates reconciliation between Israel and Turkey:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-mideast-20130323,0,3113500.story

    With Obama’s re-election and his brokering an apology, Obama became the world Jewish leader, not Bibi.

    I hope that makes you miserable.

  166. avatar
    misha marinsky March 23, 2013 at 11:46 am #

    Gabe: If there is a college program possibly a Certificate at the end of the course, for putting “Spin” on a subject?

    I have a BA double major, in English and photography, from a Jesuit college.

    To borrow from George Will, Gabe is a bloviating ignoramus.

  167. avatar
    misha marinsky March 23, 2013 at 11:53 am #

    Thinker: I have not seen any evidence showing that Saul Alinsky was not Ted Cruz’s father.

    I completely agree. I have the same concerns, especially since perky “Canada” has socialized medicine.

  168. avatar
    Paper March 23, 2013 at 12:33 pm #

    Let’s say for the moment that you are 100% innocent of any name-calling on your part. Let’s further note that you get poor treatment here. So??? How does that affect your point? It doesn’t. You just respond to people’s insults, not their factual points. That’s your doing. Say everyone is wrong to so pillory you. Fine. You still are wrong about everything that matters about the President’s eligibility, which is the point here.

    You do not respond to factual points. Have you yet posted any links to any source material where anyone ever said natural-born citizens have to be born of two citizen parents? You have not, as far as I can tell. So, you can complain about how people treat you all you want. You can mash everything together as much as you want, never mind that eligibility has nothing to do with other complaints one may have about this or any administration.

    In the beginning, middle and end, you remain wrong. Time will tell, absolutely. Indeed, it already has.

    Doesn’t much matter that you and some unhappy few think the President is ineligible. Most everyone will be glad they were never with you, they never will think themselves accursed for not standing with you, and they will hold their manhood and womanhood gratefully dear, knowing they did not fight with you on election day or any day.

    But of course none of that stops you from trying to raise your error into some kind of meaningless war-cry. Except for Lakin, who unfortunately for himself took it seriously.

    Was Lakin acting out of conscience? Does it matter? A man of conscience accepts the consequences of his actions. He could be a man of conscience and still do something foolish like disobey a lawful order. He can believe whatever he wants. But the rest of society need not follow such foolishness. And it doesn’t. His action deserved the consequences he got, but his action will have no consequence. Whatever his mindset, he was not some champion refusing to sit in the back of the bus. He was refusing a lawful order from his superiors on the bus because, for whatever reason, he didn’t accept the bus driver. That is not civil disobedience. That is just military grade insubordination.

    The bottom line for you to face is your error about eligibility, which will never get any less wrong, never be accepted by society, most especially not as a result of you worrying about how people treat you in blog comments. It is more likely that someday Americans will pass an amendment removing the natural born requirement, than anything else. In the meantime, no one of any consequence accepts your definition of natural born citizen. Most Americans never will.

    What do you have of substance that can stand in even the slightest breeze issuing from that reality?

    Gabe:

    If BS was fuel you would be a raging fire, calling people anti-American and being seditious, birthers and what ever else suits your mentality, if anyone is being seditious and anti-American, it is you and you comrades, comrade! Who rattle their cages ever louder, when one of you start rattling your spin of deception. You are good in a gang identifying with one another, though your strength of conviction would wane quickly if alone.

    Time will tell, about what is talked about in this battle of words, the war on what is true about the questions, We the People, have, is yet to be decided. Even though the Republic for which we stand could be loss because of people who foam at the mouth in their delusions as some of these post point out.

  169. avatar
    Paper March 23, 2013 at 12:57 pm #

    Ha. I come from a large, extended family of birthers, and I face them down all the time. Including the ex-military “patriots” with guns. Including being threatened by the Oath Keeper in the family. (Not all the military members of the family, though, are birthers. I should be clear about that.) So, oh my goodness, heavens to Betsy, I can’t imagine standing on my own two feet, without a bunch of anonymous blog commenters covering my back. What would I do without the kindness of strangers?

    Just in case you want to update your views to stop relying upon straw men, straw people, or even British-style Aunt Sallys…

    Gabe:
    You are good in a gang identifying with one another, though your strength of conviction would wane quickly if alone.

  170. avatar
    G March 23, 2013 at 11:43 pm #

    Bravo! Well said on all points!

    …Not that a mere “bloviating ignoramus” (H/T to George Will via Misha) will learn from his willful folly…but he’s irrelevant anyways….so for the thinking minds that read here, again, well said!

    Paper: In the beginning, middle and end, you remain wrong. Time will tell, absolutely. Indeed, it already has.

    Doesn’t much matter that you and some unhappy few think the President is ineligible. Most everyone will be glad they were never with you, they never will think themselves accursed for not standing with you, and they will hold their manhood and womanhood gratefully dear, knowing they did not fight with you on election day or any day.

    But of course none of that stops you from trying to raise your error into some kind of meaningless war-cry. Except for Lakin, who unfortunately for himself took it seriously.

    Was Lakin acting out of conscience? Does it matter? A man of conscience accepts the consequences of his actions. He could be a man of conscience and still do something foolish like disobey a lawful order. He can believe whatever he wants. But the rest of society need not follow such foolishness. And it doesn’t. His action deserved the consequences he got, but his action will have no consequence. Whatever his mindset, he was not some champion refusing to sit in the back of the bus. He was refusing a lawful order from his superiors on the bus because, for whatever reason, he didn’t accept the bus driver. That is not civil disobedience. That is just military grade insubordination.

    The bottom line for you to face is your error about eligibility, which will never get any less wrong, never be accepted by society, most especially not as a result of you worrying about how people treat you in blog comments. It is more likely that someday Americans will pass an amendment removing the natural born requirement, than anything else. In the meantime, no one of any consequence accepts your definition of natural born citizen. Most Americans never will.

    What do you have of substance that can stand in even the slightest breeze issuing from that reality?

  171. avatar
    Dave B. March 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

    Well, that’s more believable than that Alinsky and President Obama were pals.

    Thinker: He is hiding that his real father is Saul Alinsky.

  172. avatar
    Dave B. March 24, 2013 at 5:49 pm #

    I’ve got an old busted one that I just pegged the needle all the way to the right on that I use for the birthers.

    justlw: And another perfectly good shipment of irony meters ruined.

  173. avatar
    Albert W. L. Moore, Jr. March 28, 2013 at 1:16 am #

    Ted Cruz would be a natural born American citizen if he were born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens, whether by naturalization or birth, at the time of his birth.
    Ted Cruz was not born in the United States.
    Ted Cruz is not a natural born U.S. citizen as the term is used in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
    Barack Hussein Obama was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. He was a natural born American citizen on the day of his birth. He was adopted at birth by Stanley Ann Dunham (his paternal half-sister) and Barack Hussein Obama, an alien Luo tribesman. His birth parents were Stanley Armour Dunham and an unknown native Hawai’ian wahine, both U.S. citizens. The “birth certificate” presented on 27 April 2011 is based on a picture of Obama’s amended birth certificate, essentially an adoption certificate, showing his adoptive parents. He does not release his original birth certificate because neither parent was Negro. He fraudulently pretends to have a Negro father for meretricious political purposes and as carapace against investigation, which would readily prove prima facie that he relinquished American citizenship decades before running for the Office of President, and has been a Comintern mole for all of his adult life to date.
    Obama voluntarily and intentionally relinquished American citizenship in favor of underlying Indonesian naturalized citizenship when he came of age, as shown by his not registering with Selective Service in 1979 and re-entering the United States in 1981 on his Indonesian passport with American student visa from the American Embassy in Jakarta. In 1977, he started using the Social Security number of a deceased American citizen rather than apply for one predicated on his American citizenship. He was then still a minor, but this conduct confirms and corroborates his intent and volition to relinquish American citizenship when he came of age in 1979, corroborated further by his re-entry into the United States as Barry Soetoro with an American student visa in 1981.
    Obama can not be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II Section 1 because he is no longer a “Citizen” at all.
    I hope Ted Cruz is a citizen, and thereby constitutionally eligible to the Office of United States Senator, but he is not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II Section 1.
    The RINOs refuse to expose Obama’s ineligibility in part for fear of being called “racist” – which would be immediately dispelled with subpoenae of Obama’s original birth certificate and DNA. They also fear the questionable eligibility of Mitt Romney (whose father George, born in Mexico, might or might not have confirmed his American citizenship, to which he had a clear right) and the glaringly obvious constitutional ineligibility of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Hence the RINOs have seditiously concealed Obama’s ineligibility, allowing him to run rampant with espionage, sabotage, and subversion as a Comintern mole, out of motives that are not only craven, but crass and corrupt in the bargain.

  174. avatar
    Daniel March 28, 2013 at 1:27 am #

    Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.: Ted Cruz would be a natural born American citizen if he were born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens, whether by naturalization or birth, at the time of his birth.

    Orrrrrrrrrr

    Born in the US of one citizen parent.

    Orrrrrrrr

    Born in the US with neither parent a citizen

    Orrrrrrrr

    Born outside of the US to Two citizen parents

    Orrrrrrrr

    Born outside of the US to One citizen parent

    Don’t limit yourself, tell the whole truth, not just the parts you happen to like.

  175. avatar
    Dave B. March 28, 2013 at 1:46 am #

    Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.: Obama voluntarily and intentionally relinquished American citizenship in favor of underlying Indonesian naturalized citizenship when he came of age, as shown by his not registering with Selective Service in 1979…

    Al, nobody registered with the Selective Service in 1979. I sure didn’t. I guess I must be Indonesian. Honestly, you’ve had all this time to work on this goofy expatriation theory of yours and this is the best you can do?

  176. avatar
    Dave B. March 28, 2013 at 1:47 am #

    Oh, and Al– I never checked back. How did your election go?

  177. avatar
    SluggoJD March 28, 2013 at 1:57 am #

    Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.:
    Ted Cruz would be a natural born American citizen if he were born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens, whether by naturalization or birth, at the time of his birth.
    Ted Cruz was not born in the United States.
    Ted Cruz is not a natural born U.S. citizen as the term is used in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
    Barack Hussein Obama was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. He was a natural born American citizen on the day of his birth. He was adopted at birth by Stanley Ann Dunham (his paternal half-sister) and Barack Hussein Obama, an alien Luo tribesman. His birth parents were Stanley Armour Dunham and an unknown native Hawai’ian wahine, both U.S. citizens. The “birth certificate” presented on 27 April 2011 is based on a picture of Obama’s amended birth certificate, essentially an adoption certificate, showing his adoptive parents. He does not release his original birth certificate because neither parent was Negro. He fraudulently pretends to have a Negro father for meretricious political purposes and as carapace against investigation, which would readily prove prima facie that he relinquished American citizenship decades before running for the Office of President, and has been a Comintern mole for all of his adult life to date.
    Obama voluntarily and intentionally relinquished American citizenship in favor of underlying Indonesian naturalized citizenship when he came of age, as shown by his not registering with Selective Service in 1979 and re-entering the United States in 1981 on his Indonesian passport with American student visa from the American Embassy in Jakarta. In 1977, he started using the Social Security number of a deceased American citizen rather than apply for one predicated on his American citizenship. He was then still a minor, but this conduct confirms and corroborates his intent and volition to relinquish American citizenship when he came of age in 1979, corroborated further by his re-entry into the United States as Barry Soetoro with an American student visa in 1981.
    Obama can not be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II Section 1 because he is no longer a “Citizen” at all.
    I hope Ted Cruz is a citizen, and thereby constitutionally eligible to the Office of United States Senator, but he is not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II Section 1.
    The RINOs refuse to expose Obama’s ineligibility in part for fear of being called “racist” – which would be immediately dispelled with subpoenae of Obama’s original birth certificate and DNA. They also fear the questionable eligibility of Mitt Romney (whose father George, born in Mexico, might or might not have confirmed his American citizenship, to which he had a clear right) and the glaringly obvious constitutional ineligibility of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Hence the RINOs have seditiously concealed Obama’s ineligibility, allowing him to run rampant with espionage, sabotage, and subversion as a Comintern mole, out of motives that are not only craven, but crass and corrupt in the bargain.

    You’re a nutcase. Try a rope.

  178. avatar
    Dave B. March 28, 2013 at 2:26 am #

    Here’s Al’s “draft application and suggestions of amicus curiae for the Georgia court.”

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/foxnews-finally-covers-obama-birth-controversy/#comment-72962

    How did that work out, Al?

  179. avatar
    aarrgghh March 28, 2013 at 3:08 am #

    Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.: … which would be immediately dispelled with subpoenae of Obama’s original birth certificate and DNA.

    i’m no dna expert and i’m sure to be corrected if i’m wrong, but obama’s dna by itself would tell us nothing relevant to his eligibility. the question could be “immediately dispelled” for birfers (i know, i know … just stop laughing and let me feeneesh) only by comparing his dna to samples taken from stanley ann and barack sr. (two more subpoenas to get!)

    but to completely and unequivocally erase all doubt and finally resolve the greatest constitutional crisis in the history of the universe, to be absolutely 100% end-of-the-story sure, we’d really need to collect dna from lolo soetoro, frank marshall davis, stanley dunham, malcolm x, fidel castro, every black man in hawaii, seattle and topeka …

  180. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2013 at 6:26 am #

    Let’s look at our latest birther’s claims one by one:

    Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.:
    1. He was adopted at birth
    2. His birth parents were Stanley Armour Dunham and an unknown native Hawai’ian wahine,
    3. He does not release his original birth certificate because neither parent was Negro.
    4. He fraudulently pretends to have a Negro father
    5. investigation, which would readily prove prima facie
    6. re-entering the United States in 1981 on his Indonesian passport
    7. re-entry into the United States as Barry Soetoro with an American student visa in 1981.

    So let’s sum up:

    1, 2, 6, 7: You have zero proof for any of this.

    3. If his BC was “amended”, as you say, he would not have the authority to see, let alone release, his “original” BC. Originals of amended BC’s are sealed by a court and can only be unsealed by a court. (Of course you have no proof his BC was amended to begin with, see 1, 2, 6, 7.)

    4. If he was “adopted at birth”, there is zero indication he was ever told he was adopted. If he wasn’t told he was adopted, he could, by definition, not lie about who his parents are. Since you have no proof he was told he was adopted… Again, even if, arguendo, your theory were true, you have zero proof for your deductions.

    5. Like all birthers, you have no idea what “prima facie” means. Not even remotely. Look it up. But careful, you might learn something. I hear that’s very dangerous for a birther brain.

  181. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2013 at 6:33 am #

    aarrgghh: the question could be “immediately dispelled” for birfers (i know, i know … just stop laughing and let me feeneesh)

    Vattelist birthers have constructed a fallback position (and I think this is the only time I ever saw them actually plan a theory ahead instead of retro-fitting the theory to the facts) for the hypothetical case it would turn out Obama had a different but US citizen father:
    They claim that the biological father is irrelevant and only the legal father (who is on the BC – which in this case would suddenly stop being a “forgery” or “legally invalid”) is relevant.
    While I don’t have an opinion on the legal validity of this argument, it clearly shows that the demands for DNA tests are intellectually dishonest from the get-go.

    Birthers have always only been interested in negative evidence (anything that would prove Obama ineligible). If they demand something and it turns out to not say what they hoped it would say, they just ask for more / move the goalposts etc.
    No birther would look at Obama’s college records and go “oh, so it doesn’t say ‘Soetoro’ or ‘furry strange student’ or ‘Indonesian’, so I’m convinced he’s a-OK” but rather “this proves nothing, we now need to see his golf club membership application to check if it says anything about furrin city-son-ship”.

  182. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 28, 2013 at 9:19 am #

    The Magic M: But careful, you might learn something. I hear that’s very dangerous for a birther brain.

    They have brains?