Main Menu

Ted Cruz releases birth certificate

The Dallas Morning News reports that Senator Ted Cruz released his birth certificate. This is not a joke.

According to the Dallas Morning News, Senator Cruz is both an American and a Canadian citizen. I guess that makes him equally eligible to be President of the United States or Prime Minister of Canada1.

Update:

Senator Cruz, after initially denying that he was a Canadian citizen, has now said the he is renouncing his Canadian citizenship. President Obama was also born a dual citizen of the US and the UK; his UK citizenship automatically ended when he reached age 23.


1While there are no specific eligibility requirements for the Prime Minister of Canada, it is generally held that the qualifications for a Member of Parliament apply, and that is to be a Citizen of Canada of voting age (18). See the Wikipedia article for more details.

Print Friendly

, ,

181 Responses to Ted Cruz releases birth certificate

  1. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 10:36 am #

    rafael “ted” cruz released his birth certificate

    “Canada-born Ted Cruz became a citizen of that country as well as U.S.”

    “Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.”

    “Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.”

    “‘He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.”

    “If a child was born in the territory, he is Canadian, period,” said France Houle, a law professor at the University of Montreal. “He can ask for a passport. He can vote.”

    Link to Dallas Morning News.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2013 at 11:10 am #

    Thanks for the tip.

    donna: rafael “ted” cruz released his birth certificate

  3. avatar
    The Magic M August 19, 2013 at 11:20 am #

    I wonder if birthers will treat “that the particulars … are as follows” similar to their “Hawaii only certified the information matches”.

    Or what they will make of these other “issues”:

    * “Certificate of Birth”, not a birth certificate
    * Record number does not match stamp on the bottom
    * No witnesses of birth named, nobody attested to place of birth
    * That red blob supposed to be a seal?
    * The “E” and “e” in “Eleanor” are not on the same baseline as the rest, unlike in all other words using those letters (“RAFAEL”, “Delaware”)
    * When did he ever legally change his name from “Rafael” to “Ted”? Proof?

    With a bigger picture, one could probably play the birther game “make up inconsistencies” much better.
    Though I somehow doubt WND will devote dozens of articles (or Supreme Marshal Zullo any of the CCP resources to “clear” Cruz) to it.

  4. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2013 at 11:24 am #

    And the usual birfoons ooze out from under their rocks in the comments to display their ignorance.

  5. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2013 at 11:29 am #

    I’m sorry, but there’s no hospital name and no doctor’s signature. What is Cruz hiding?

  6. avatar
    Jim August 19, 2013 at 11:30 am #

    Wonder how long it’s going to take Rafael to get rid of his Canadian citizenship? Or maybe he should keep it and let all Canadians vote for him too. :lol:

  7. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 19, 2013 at 11:30 am #

    Gee, I wonder where the birthers all scurried away too…
    If they were impartial as they claim, and only care about finding out the truth, one would assume that they would be scrutinizing the hell out of this certificate…

    Slightly off topic: Brightfart news is actually accusing CNN of “Cruz Derangement Syndrome”. Oh. The. Irony.

  8. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    Jim: Wonder how long it’s going to take Rafael to get rid of his Canadian citizenship?

    remember this?

    Michele Bachmann renounces Swiss citizenship (just one day after revealing her application)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142638/Michele-Bachmann-renounces-Swiss-citizenship-just-day-announcing-filing.html

  9. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2013 at 11:37 am #

    Fair is fair. I use my middle name too.

  10. avatar
    aarrgghh August 19, 2013 at 11:42 am #

    it’s obvious that thing is PHONY AS HELL. and from the same forger i bet. anyone can tell just by looking at it.

    i’m thinking cruz is working some sideways plan to get the dems to go after him. that way cruz gets standing, reveals the forger and then bye-bye barry bams! cruz’ll be a hero and blow right past hillary straight into our white house.

    </birferbrainfart>

  11. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 19, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    Well heck, it looks 100x better than Romney’s!

  12. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    It’s revealing how many birthers are complaining that it is liberals who are questioning Cruz’ eligibility. I personally don’t know a single liberal who is questioning it, but it’s fun to see the Tea Partiers going nuts over this.

    I do believe that for political reasons Cruz will feel compelled to renounce his Canadian citizenship.

  13. avatar
    Bob August 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm #

    The father’s middle name is supposedly “Beinvenido” which means “welcome.” I think that’s some sort of a clue/joke from the forger.

  14. avatar
    JPotter August 19, 2013 at 12:14 pm #

    WHAT?!? Dual citizenship??? The National Isolationist Birfer Pitchfork Brigade is out in force on this, right? :P

  15. avatar
    Arthur August 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm #

    Rickey: but it’s fun to see the Tea Partiers going nuts over this.

    And don’t forget the nuts at ORYR–although there is at least one fellow, I think his name is Julio Schmeckel, who supports Ted Cruz.

  16. avatar
    Arthur August 19, 2013 at 12:43 pm #

    Rickey: I’m sorry, but there’s no hospital name and no doctor’s signature. What is Cruz hiding?

    Apparently he’s hiding this:

    “Reliable sources, who for their own protection must remain anonymous, report that Cruz’ father made his wife fly to Cuba to give birth to their child in the land of his father’s ancestors. In a news article that has now been wiped from the web, Rafael Cruz explained why he hustled his heavily pregnant wife to Havana:

    “‘Cuba is a proud nation, and the largest island in the Caribbean. Also, we have great musical traditions. I wanted Rafael Jr. to be born hearing the rhythms of the rumba and grow up to be, maybe another Desi Arnaz. But he chose law and politics. Am I disappointed? Well, you take the good with the bad.'”

  17. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    Release of Sen. Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth certificate sparks questions about dual citizenship

    “The result is that Cruz apparently currently retains his citizenship in both the United States and Canada. No one claims that Cruz is a Canadian Manchurian candidate but, as the last two presidential elections have proven, any question about a candidate’s eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency will find traction in certain portions of the electorate.”

    “Unless, that is, Cruz publicly renounces his Canadian citizenship. His spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, indicates that is unlikely to happen: ‘Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen. To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship, so there is nothing to renounce’.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/release-of-sen-ted-cruzs-canadian-birth-certificate-sparks-questions-about-dual-citizenship/

  18. avatar
    Arthur August 19, 2013 at 1:03 pm #

    I’ve been examining Ted Cruz’ “birth certificate” under high magnification using Microsoft’s Picture and Fax viewer and note the following anomalies:

    1. The seal shows no embossing.
    2. No official writing can be seen on the seal.
    3. The signature the “Director” is obviously not made by a human being; also, exactly \what is he a director of? He could be a Cruzomatic*, directing forgeries.
    4. There is a nine day difference between the date of Cruz’ birth and the date his birth was registered. This would have given his parents plenty of time to fly from Havana, the actual city of his birth and where it’s rumored that Fidel Castro cut little Ted’s umbilical cord, and return to Canada.
    5. The “8” in the birth certificate number is much lighter than the other numbers and this suggests that the number has been manipulated.

    *Cruzomatics are those sheeple who revere Ted Cruz and refuse to acknowledge the obvious fraud surrounding his birth narrative and birth records.

  19. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2013 at 1:04 pm #

    Arthur: Apparently he’s hiding this:

    “Reliable sources, who for their own protection must remain anonymous, report that Cruz’ father made his wife fly to Cuba to give birth to their child in the land of his father’s ancestors. In a news article that has now been wiped from the web, Rafael Cruz explained why he hustled his heavily pregnant wife to Havana:

    “‘Cuba is a proud nation, and the largest island in the Caribbean. Also, we have great musical traditions. I wanted Rafael Jr. to be born hearing the rhythms of the rumba and grow up to be, maybe another Desi Arnaz. But he chose law and politics. Am I disappointed? Well, you take the good with the bad.’”

    Thanks for a good laugh!

  20. avatar
    misha marinsky August 19, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    Here are some comments: ‘Cruz’s father was a US citizen. Obama’s father never was.’

    Someone called Obama a “silverback.”

    ‘It’s not a fake certificate like Obama’s.’

  21. avatar
    Andrew Morris August 19, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

    In the meantime, Oraly Taitz continues her crusade as America’s worst attorney, ever. In response to a story that the DoJ is going after Standard & Poor’s, she says that the S&P attorneys can file an anti-SLAPP motion and get the claim dismissed immediately, with costs. But clearly the good doctor hasn’t actually read the California statute (nothing new there, I guess) which specifically excludes all such motions when a claim is brought in respect of commercial activity or, of course, when it’s brought by a federal or state entity.

  22. avatar
    Arthur August 19, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

    misha marinsky:
    Here are some comments: ‘Cruz’s father was a US citizen. Obama’s father never was.’

    Someone called Obama a “silverback.”

    ‘It’s not a fake certificate like Obama’s.’

    I like this earnest but ignorant comment from ORYR:

    “We here know Ted’s not eligible because of what I know, most here know, the fact that the parents of the citizen must be citizens. This is not actually in the text of NBC, BUT!!! It is discussed in detail in the federalist papers and Vittal’s (sic) Law of Nations.”

    Vittal? Didn’t he cut hair? Or was that his brother?

  23. avatar
    Bob August 19, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

    If The Birthers would just admit that Obama is eligible Cruz’s problem would disappear.

    Where’s the admission?

  24. avatar
    misha marinsky August 19, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

    Aaaand of course I put in a link in comments, to my famous Kenya BC.

    “I found the Kenya BC everyone is looking for: http://tinyurl.com/phwo85h

    Some are angry; some are amused.

  25. avatar
    Fuzz T. Was August 19, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

    The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Per Article 2, Section 1:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The term natural-born citizen is not well understood today but was commonly understood in the 18th and 19th centuries. The term was first used in the legal treaties, “the Law of Nations”, by Swiss writer Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel stated: “natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.” It was not defined in the Constitution nor in later statutes, because the meaning was self evident to everyone when it was written.

    Vattel’s book was well known to the founding fathers and they relied on it often.

    In 1775, Benjamin Franklin noted the importance of the Law of Nations to the founders by ordering 3 of the latest editions. Franklin in a letter to Charles Dumas in December 1775 stated:

    “…the Law of Nations….has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained high and just esteem for their author?”

    Another indication the founders relied on Vattel is found in Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the authority to “punish…offenses against the Law of Nations.”

    The term natural-born citizen applied only to the President. Members of the House, Senate and the Courts were required to be citizens, but not necessarily natural-born citizens.

    The clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington. The letter, dated July 25, 1787, stated the following:

    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

  26. avatar
    Andy August 19, 2013 at 2:13 pm #

    Nice try, Fuzz. If only this statement were correct:

    “The term was first used in the legal treaties, “the Law of Nations”, by Swiss writer Emerich de Vattel in 1758.”

    Unfortunately for you, Vattel’s treatise doesn’t include those words at all.

    The rest of your argument thus fails.

  27. avatar
    MattR August 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    Fuzz T. Was:

    Holy cow!! What amazing and original research. That completely changes everything I thought I knew about the subject.

    I will now remove the tongue from my cheek and sit back to let the experts thoroughly dismantle your “argument” for what feels like the thousandth time.

  28. avatar
    misha marinsky August 19, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

    Fuzz T. Was: It was not defined in the Constitution nor in later statutes, because the meaning was self evident to everyone when it was written.

    Hey Fuzzy: Wrong site. You should be commenting at WND.

  29. avatar
    Sudoku August 19, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    Hm…you might want to check your copy again. It is not in that edition.

    Fuzz T. Was:
    The term was first used in the legal treaties, “the Law of Nations”, by Swiss writer Emerich de Vattel in 1758.

  30. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 2:24 pm #

    Fuzz T. Was: In chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel stated: “natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.”

    when i asked apuzzo to translate a simple french phrase i created into english he told me to “ask a french waiter”

    the phrase contained the french word “parents”

    from larousse:

    un proche parent …… a close relative ou relation
    un lointain parent, un parent éloigné ……. a distant relative ou relation
    un parent du côté paternel/maternel …………. a relation on the father’s/mother’s side
    nous sommes parents par ma femme …………… we’re related through my wife
    ce sont des parents en ligne directe/par alliance ……………… they’re blood relations/related by marriage

  31. avatar
    misha marinsky August 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

    MattR: Holy cow!! What amazing and original research. That completely changes everything I thought I knew about the subject.

    I know. Fuzzy must be a Constitutional lawyer on the faculty of a world class law school like the Lysander Spooner Law School, or the Taft Law School – conveniently located on the second floor of a shopping center.

    Hey Fuzzy: Does the Taft Law School have an elevator to the second floor, or is it walk up only?

  32. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

    Fuzz T. Was:
    The term natural-born citizen is not well understood today but was commonly understood in the 18th and 19th centuries.The term was first used in the legal treaties, “the Law of Nations”, by Swiss writer Emerich de Vattel in 1758.In chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel stated: “natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.”It was not defined in the Constitution nor in later statutes, because the meaning was self evident to everyone when it was written.

    You have multiple problems.

    1. That quote that you put never appears in Emerich de Vattel’s writing. If you’re going to quote someone, at least look up the quote to get it right. The actual quote is: “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.”

    Nowhere in that sentance does the term “Natural Born Citizen” occur. In fact, the French term for Natural Born Citizen doesn’t occur (citizens naturals). And in no translation during the time of the founding fathers did the term occur. The first time that the term occured was during a 1797 translation into English, well after the constitution was wriitten and adopted.

    However, the term “Natural Born” had a 400 year history in English Common Law. Is it more reasonable to assume that founders took the term “Natural Born” from English Common Law, which every one of them were knowledgable about, rather than from a book that didn’t even contain the term until after the constitution was adopted?

    2. The plural on parents follows the plural on citizens. It’s common English. For instance, “Parents must pick their children up from school”. Does this mean that two parents must pick up their children? Or that the parents must have more than one child in order to pick them up? That’s what you’re suggesting by putting emphesis on the plural.

    3. The french word that you’ve translated as “Parents” (parens), is more closely means relatives, than actual parents.

    4. There was a term in English Common Law that specifically used the term “Natural Born”. The Supreme Court has said time and time again that when the term is not defined in the Constitution, we must look to English Common Law for the definition (Smith v. Alabama, among others). English Common Law defined Natural Born as being jus soli, not jus saguinis.

    Vattel’s book was well known to the founding fathers and they relied on it often.

    Doesn’t matter. Emerich Vattel actually wasn’t relied upon that extensively. The only area that he was even quoted by the founders was in the area of International Law. Citizenship is Domestic Law, which they would not have. Blackstone and the common law was relied upon hundreds of times more often than Vattel was. In fact, Blackstone was the most relied upon commentator for any sort of law. The Supreme Court has recognized this.

    Your quote on the constitution actually is wrong as well. The actual quote (with the captialization in place is as following: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

    You’ll notice that every noun is captialized (Piracies, Felonies, Seas, Offenses, Law, Nations). That was the style back then. Furthermore, Blackstone had a chapter of his extensive commentaries titled the Law of Nations. Blackstone was quoted more regularly than what Vattel has been both during the constitution, and afterwords.

    Smith v. Alabama (1888) said the following: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    So, it’s much more likely that the term “Natural Born” was taken from the English Common Law, which is where the Supreme Court of the United States has said that we must look towards to define terms within the Constitution.

  33. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2013 at 3:13 pm #

    ‘Birther’ Orly Taitz: Ted Cruz Has ‘Basically the Same Issue as Obama’

    “Clearly there is an issue of eligibility,” crusading skeptic of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate Orly Taitz told U.S. News. “It’s basically the same issue as Obama has.”

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/08/19/birther-orly-taitz-ted-cruz-has-basically-the-same-issue-as-obama

    The idiot harpy hath shrieked.

  34. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

    orly’s “Demand for a correction of an article and my quotes sent to U.S. News”

    it ends with: I am posting this demand for correction on my web site orlytaitzesq.com, as well as a 146 page file with documents submitted to courts, showing Obama using a stolen Social Security number and fabricated IDs

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=430988

  35. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 3:37 pm #

    It’s unclear what Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio thinks about Cruz’s eligibility. The sheriff convened a “cold case posse” in 2012 to evaluate Obama’s birth certificate and at a stunning press conference declared it a “computer-generated forgery.”

    A spokesman for Arpaio did not immediately respond to a U.S. News request for comment.

  36. avatar
    Arthur August 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm #

    Fuzz T. Was: Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners

    I share John Jay’s concern. Thankfully, since it is well established that Barack Obama was born in the United States, we don’t have to worry about his foreignness. However, that Rafael “Ted” Cruz, is a Canadian citizen and the son of a Cuban national, so he’s definitely suspicious.

  37. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater August 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm #

    donna: It’s unclear what Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio thinks about Cruz’s eligibility. The sheriff convened a “cold case posse” in 2012 to evaluate Obama’s birth certificate and at a stunning press conference declared it a “computer-generated forgery.”A spokesman for Arpaio did not immediately respond to a U.S. News request for comment.

    Maybe that should be the next thing that should be asked of zullo on gallups show what they thought about Ted Cruz’s BC

  38. avatar
    JoZeppy August 19, 2013 at 4:22 pm #

    Fuzz T. Was:
    The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787.Per Article 2, Section 1:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The term natural-born citizen is not well understood today but was commonly understood in the 18th and 19th centuries.The term was first used in the legal treaties, “the Law of Nations”, by Swiss writer Emerich de Vattel in 1758.In chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel stated: “natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.”It was not defined in the Constitution nor in later statutes, because the meaning was self evident to everyone when it was written.

    Vattel’s book was well known to the founding fathers and they relied on it often.

    In 1775, Benjamin Franklin noted the importance of the Law of Nations to the founders by ordering 3 of the latest editions.Franklin in a letter to Charles Dumas in December 1775 stated:

    “…the Law of Nations….has been continually in the hands ofthe members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained high and just esteem for their author?”

    Another indication the founders relied on Vattel is found in Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the authority to “punish…offenses against the Law of Nations.”

    The term natural-born citizen applied only to the President.Members of the House, Senate and the Courts were required to be citizens, but not necessarily natural-born citizens.

    The clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington.The letter, dated July 25, 1787, stated the following:

    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Wow!!! We’ve never seen that before, and certainly haven’t debunked it more times than one can count. I wonder what we’ve been doing here for the last 5 years?!?!

    Another drive by birther idiot peddling old worn out garbage. I was dumb when it was first dragged out of the sewer, and it certainly has not aged well with the passage of time.

  39. avatar
    Jim August 19, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/19/breaking-ted-cruz-birth-certificate-a-forgery/

    But a spokesman for the Orly Taitz Center for Ludicrous Investigations has challenged the provenance of the birth certificate, claiming “there are too many irregularities to list.”

    “It’s a forgery,” said Joel Smokehouse, OTCLI’s director of public affairs.

    “We examined the document using our scanning electron microscope and found all sorts of weird things — you know, like scientific stuff. It was real pretty — but bad, very bad.”

    Chief Investigator Alec Rotiron:

    “It was crystal clear that the birth certificate had been tampered with at the sub-atomic level. We think the document started out as a tomato and was altered to appear as a genuine, authentic Canadian birth certificate. Or it could be we need to clean the electron microscope. We’re not sure.”

    Document Analyst Clydesdale Tomboy:

    “An obvious forgery. After immersing the newspaper story in a solution of salt water and iodine, the writing on the birth certificate became illegible. This document couldn’t have fooled a child.”

    Mr. Smokehouse told the packed press conference that all they were doing was asking questions and what’s wrong with that?

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

  40. avatar
    helen August 19, 2013 at 5:11 pm #

    In reference to the bc of Cruz, the certificate is not like the USA birth certificate, as far as I know, as the USA does not have jurisdication on Canadian birth certificates.

    It is a good example of what a competent clerk would do in producing a government document in that the it is in the proper form, typing ,and appearence

    The signature appears to be a pen signature, the seal is that that meets Canadian standards, and there is little that can be disputed

    Now you anti-birther point out the OCR correction, changes,omissions, that you claim are part of the normal processing of documents that are scanned,

    If they were on Obama’s bc, should not the same artificates be on this copy.

  41. avatar
    Reality Check August 19, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    The document that matters for US citizenship has not been released by Cruz. It is a copy of his Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) form.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    No. Obama’s form is a PDF and Cruz’ a JPG. There’s all sorts of educational opportunities on this site that you aren’t taking advantage of.

    helen: If they were on Obama’s bc, should not the same artificates (sic) be on this copy.

  43. avatar
    helen August 19, 2013 at 5:25 pm #

    Now, as to the overall effect of the BC, there is none!

    He was not born under the jurisdication of the USA, his father was not an American Citizen, his mother was.

    However, his citizenship is by legal action, as shown here:
    “A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required”

    Notice that little reference to Section 301(g) of the INA.(immigration and naturalization act)

    Which makes him a legalized citizen just like a a naturalized citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen!

    And, I am a Republican and would not object to the Cuban American Brown Citizen as president, but not if he is a naturalized citizen instead of a NBC

  44. avatar
    Bob August 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm #

    The signature J Iouvelli(?) looks like a stamp sloping downward.

    Frankly, this “document” asks more questions than it answers and has all us Patriots concerned.

  45. avatar
    helen August 19, 2013 at 5:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No. Obama’s form is a PDF and Cruz’ a JPG. There’s all sorts of educational opportunities on this site that you aren’t taking advantage of.

    convert it to a pdf and check it out!

  46. avatar
    Bob August 19, 2013 at 5:37 pm #

    Remembrances of Cruz in college:

    ❛ When Craig Mazin first met his freshman roommate, Rafael Edward Cruz, he knew the 17-year-old Texan was not like other students at Princeton, or probably anywhere else for that matter.

    “I remember very specifically that he had a book in Spanish and the title was Was Karl Marx a Satanist? And I thought, who is this person?” Mazin says of Ted Cruz. “Even in 1988, he was politically extreme in a way that was surprising to me.” ❜

    ☞LINK

  47. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 5:48 pm #

    Bob: Remembrances of Cruz in college:

    He has an impressive academic résumé: an undergraduate degree from Princeton, followed by law school at Harvard. I’ve talked with his fellow students at Harvard and with his former colleagues from George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. All of them mention how fiercely smart he is.

    But the flattery stops there. They remember him as arrogant, sour and self-serving, traits that apply to his brief time in the Senate so far.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/ted-cruz-the-gops-nasty-newcomer.html?pagewanted=all

  48. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 19, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

    Why is it that birthers seem uniformly unable to exhibit any sort of elementary politeness whatsoever. They may be little things like failing to use the quote function or spewing their crap over the first thread they find regardless of its topic, but I think that the lack of respect for Doc and the readers of this blog is a dead giveaway of the contempt in which they hold anyone who will not submit to their insane theories. I wish that they could all be made to realize that if they lived in an alternate reality where all of their ravings were true then the only reason that any of them are still breathing is how completely and totally incompetent and impotent they are.

    Fuzz T. Was:
    [Off topic recycled birther bullshit]

  49. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 19, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

    Why is it that birthers seem uniformly unable to exhibit any sort of elementary politeness whatsoever. They may be little things like failing to use the quote function or spewing their crap over the first thread they find regardless of its topic, but I think that the lack of respect for Doc and the readers of this blog is a dead giveaway of the contempt in which they hold anyone who will not submit to their insane theories. I wish that they could all be made to realize that if they lived in an alternate reality where all of their ravings were true then the only reason that the evil conspiracy hasn’t silenced them by now is how completely incompetent and impotent they are.

    Fuzz T. Was: [Off-topic recycled birther BS]

  50. avatar
    justlw August 19, 2013 at 6:00 pm #

    I’d like to take a moment to send my hearty congratulations to Mrs. Fraser’s 3rd grade Art class at Pearson Elementary in Windsor, Ontario, for winning the “Design Our Country’s Birth Certificate, Eh?” competition.

  51. avatar
    justlw August 19, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    donna (quoting rawstory.com): No one claims that Cruz is a Canadian Manchurian candidate

    Wait, wait! I claim that! I firmly believe that if we let this hoser/usurper into the White House, Alanis Morissette is going to be singing “O Canada” at his inauguration. Just you wait and see.

  52. avatar
    BillTheCat August 19, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

    Some commenter on ORYR *actually* said that since Cruz’s BC was released as a .jpg, it therefore has no layers, and is therefor far more legit than the President’s BC. Wow. Just… wow.

  53. avatar
    justlw August 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm #

    BillTheCat:
    Some commenter on ORYR *actually* said that since Cruz’s BC was released as a .jpg, it therefore has no layers, and is therefor far more legit than the President’s BC. Wow. Just… wow.

    Clearly they haven’t been paying attention to _person I can’t be bothered to look up_ who said that a document has to have lots of layers or it’s just so much trash. Or, as _other person I can’t be bothered with_ helpfully pointed out, no, fewer than that. Or more. Or something. Anyway, it has to be the right number of layers, which is greater than 1 and less than, I don’t know, 50 bajillion. Oh, and if it’s the same number as the White House PDF, that’s the wrong answer.

  54. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

    justlw: I’d like to take a moment to send my hearty congratulations to Mrs. Fraser’s 3rd grade Art class at Pearson Elementary in Windsor, Ontario, for winning the “Design Our Country’s Birth Certificate, Eh?” competition.

    lol in looking at that red blob, was the prize a box of crayons?

    calgary is located in the province of alberta – here is the PDF of their new birth certificate:

    http://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/vs/AB-birth-certificate-SAMPLE.pdf

    New Alberta Birth Certificate

    Albertans are not required to obtain a new birth certificate. Individuals born in Alberta who want a new certificate may apply for one through a registry agent.

    http://www.servicealberta.ca/1060.cfm

  55. avatar
    JPotter August 19, 2013 at 6:50 pm #

    BillTheCat:
    Some commenter on ORYR *actually* said that since Cruz’s BC was released as a .jpg, it therefore has no layers, and is therefor far more legit than the President’s BC. Wow. Just… wow.

    So, just save the WH PDF as a JPEG and PDF madness goes away?

    Dang, I wish I had thought of that … ;)

    That is one heck of a goofy-ass looking’ BC Cruz put out. Is that a piece of smashed bubblegum passing for a seal?!?

    And why so tiny? I haven’t seen a link to any higher resolution image than what’s on the Dallas morning news site. Unless the original is greeting-card size, then this scan is roughly a net 48dpi. Why try to minimize the information?

  56. avatar
    justlw August 19, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

    donna: calgary is located in the province of alberta

    Oops. How very, er, provincial of me to think there’d be only one BC format for the whole country. As they say in Québec, “Mea culpa.”

    here is the PDF of their new birth certificate:

    http://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/vs/AB-birth-certificate-SAMPLE.pdf

    Now that’s a birth certificate! Cool fonts, color gradient backgrounds, maple leaves galore! And if you scan the barcode in the corner with your smartphone, it takes you to a killer bison chili recipe!

    Seriously, that might be the most awesome government document I’ve ever seen.

  57. avatar
    justlw August 19, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

    JPotter: And why so tiny?

    Probably to cover up that the forgers accidentally wrote “Name of Futher” instead of “Name of Father”. I think Mara Zebest needs to get right on this.

  58. avatar
    JPotter August 19, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    justlw: Seriously, that might be the most awesome government document I’ve ever seen.

    … and bilingual … in French, no less! That would cause the nativists to collectively, spontaneously, aneurysm. Might not be a bad thing …..

    That aside, it looks like clip art abuse to me (the canucks raided the Dover Library!), but to each his own. :)

  59. avatar
    Suranis August 19, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

    Wow, I’ve never heard of the USA Birth certificate! Can we see it? Are you saying you support goverment overreach by having a unified BC?? Have you told your Tea party friends about this???

    And I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that birthers find nothing wrong with a republicans birth cert

    helen: In reference to the bc of Cruz, the certificate is not like the USA birth certificate, as far as I know, as the USA does not have jurisdication on Canadian birth certificates

  60. avatar
    Suranis August 19, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

    All converting it to a pdf would do is create layers, maybe, depending on how you did it. You have to scan it.

    Unless you are saying that PDFing is a fraud detection device again.

    helen: convert it to a pdf and check it out!

  61. avatar
    Joey August 19, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

    Cruz disputes claim of dual citizenship with Canada, releases birth certificate

    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’ office is rejecting claims that the Republican lawmaker — and possible 2016 presidential candidate — is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen, and for the first time has released the senator’s birth certificate.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/19/cruz-disputes-claim-dual-citizenship-with-canada-releases-birth-certificate/#ixzz2cSusn0cS

  62. avatar
    ZixiOfIx August 19, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

    Henceforth, he shall be known as Rafael Edward “Babalu” Cruz.

    Or, if you prefer a ‘Simpsons’ reference, he’s a puck-slapping maple sucker (aka, a Canadian).

    This whole thing amuses me no end. I see that birthers on various sites are regrouping, and some now want to make the argument that President Obama’s mother wasn’t old enough under the law at the time to pass on citizenship.

    Of course, they also make the argument that Congress cannot interpret or change the meaning of “Natural Born” through mere laws. If that is so, then any law about the age of the mother is without meaning, and Obama is an NBC, regardless of where he was born (Hawaii, for those just tuning in).

    This is the best Monday I’ve had in a while.

    Arthur:

    “‘Cuba is a proud nation, and the largest island in the Caribbean. Also, we have great musical traditions. I wanted Rafael Jr. to be born hearing the rhythms of the rumba and grow up to be, maybe another Desi Arnaz. But he chose law and politics. Am I disappointed? Well, you take the good with the bad.’”

  63. avatar
    jayHG August 19, 2013 at 9:17 pm #

    The Magic M:
    I wonder if birthers will treat “that the particulars … are as follows” similar to their “Hawaii only certified the information matches”.

    Or what they will make of these other “issues”:

    * “Certificate of Birth”, not a birth certificate
    * Record number does not match stamp on the bottom
    * No witnesses of birth named, nobody attested to place of birth
    * That red blob supposed to be a seal?
    * The “E” and “e” in “Eleanor” are not on the same baseline as the rest, unlike in all other words using those letters (“RAFAEL”, “Delaware”)
    * When did he ever legally change his name from “Rafael” to “Ted”? Proof?

    With a bigger picture, one could probably play the birther game “make up inconsistencies” much better.
    Though I somehow doubt WND will devote dozens of articles (orSupreme Marshal Zullo any of the CCP resources to “clear” Cruz) to it.

    Nope….over at free republic they accept it outright. No questions asked.

  64. avatar
    helen August 19, 2013 at 9:17 pm #

    If you are anything but a natural born citizen, in otherwords, if your citizenship depends upon a law that was passed to make you a citizen, you are not eligible to be the President of the USA.

    Dispute that a while.

  65. avatar
    jayHG August 19, 2013 at 9:22 pm #

    Rickey:
    It’s revealing how many birthers are complaining that it is liberals who are questioning Cruz’ eligibility. I personally don’t know a single liberal who is questioning it, but it’s fun to see the Tea Partiers going nuts over this.

    I do believe that for political reasons Cruz will feel compelled to renounce his Canadian citizenship.

    I agree. It’s the oddest thing. They keep saying “OMG….the liberals are going to go crazy over Cruz not being a NBC when they said nothing about Obama!”

    Nothing of the kind is or will happen, but they keep saying it and of course they never dispute any lies any birther tells. They just agree with it cause, well, it’s anti Obama/liberals so that’s good enough.

    Liberals know that Cruz is eligible, and so that’s that. Birthers are so ignorant, and I love seeing them whine and cry and work themselves into a seizure before/after each failed attempt to remove the scary black man from THEIR White House.

  66. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 9:23 pm #

    helen: Dispute that a while.

    wow a novel idea ;)

    but for the few exceptions, you are either natural/native born OR naturalized

  67. avatar
    Suranis August 19, 2013 at 9:26 pm #

    Why bother. Its a load of nonsense. You might as well debate the dact that the sky is yellow with blue spots.

    helen:
    If you are anything but a natural born citizen, in otherwords, if your citizenship depends upon a law that was passed to make you a citizen, you are not eligible to be the President of the USA.

    Dispute that a while.

  68. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 19, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

    Helen,

    If you believe that, then you believe that President Obama is a natural born citizen (since he is clearly a citizen by the 14th Amendment) by the law of contraposition.

    As for Cruz, he is, first and foremost, a natural born Canadian (which matters not at all to his eligibility, contrary to what idiot birthers believe). While he is, as you point out, a statutory citizen and the Founders probably wouldn’t have considered him natural born (this is my non-lawyer legal opinion), I think that the courts would probably rule otherwise and I highly doubt any of his rivals, Republican or Democrat, would file suit against him in the first place. In light of this, I think he is natural born for all practical purposes.

    So, are you willing to admit that President Obama is natural born or are you just a hypocrite?

    helen:
    If you are anything but a natural born citizen, in otherwords, if your citizenship depends upon a law that was passed to make you a citizen, you are not eligible to be the President of the USA.

    Dispute that a while.

  69. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2013 at 9:38 pm #

    I still want to see his long form. What is the race of his father? According to birther John, it must be Cuban.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

    Since you have no authority to back up such an opinion, there is nothing to dispute.

    helen: If you are anything but a natural born citizen, in otherwords, if your citizenship depends upon a law that was passed to make you a citizen, you are not eligible to be the President of the USA.

    Dispute that a while.

  71. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 19, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Here’s a few fun facts about one Presidential Candidate…

    The candidate was born in a country that still swears allegiance to the British Monarch…

    As a result of that birth, the candidate was born with dual citizenship (possibly try-citizenship) at birth. That citizenship, as far as I know, has never gone away, so he’s most likely a citizen of multiple countries.

    The candidate’s father fought in a revolution to install a communist as dictator, was tortured by the U.S. backed leader of that country as a because of that. (Can you imangine what the right-wing would say if Obama’s father had fought for a communist?)

    That candidate’s name is Ted Cruz.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2013 at 10:04 pm #

    Let us consider the esteemed Abraham Lincoln, born in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. According to the Constitution as it was adopted in 1789, people born where Lincoln was born were not born in the United States, nor citizens of the United States, and therefore not eligible to become President.

    Kentucky only became a State through a statute. Therefore Lincoln was only eligible to be President because of a statute that fundamentally changed who was born a citizen.

    ZixiOfIx: Of course, they also make the argument that Congress cannot interpret or change the meaning of “Natural Born” through mere laws. If that is so, then any law about the age of the mother is without meaning, and Obama is an NBC, regardless of where he was born (Hawaii, for those just tuning in).

  73. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Here’s a few fun facts about one Presidential Candidate…

    Sen. Ted Cruz says that comprehensive immigration reform is “incredibly unfair to those who follow the rules,” even though his father admits that he was forced to use bribes to immigrate from Cuba.

    The older Cruz explained that he had once fought with Fidel Castro’s forces in Cuba to overthrow Fulgencio Batista, a U.S.-backed dictator. He later fled to the United States after receiving a four-year student visa to study at the University of Texas.

    “Then the only other thing that I needed was an exit permit from the Batista government,” Rafael Cruz said. “A friend of the family, a lawyer friend of my father, basically bribed a Batista official to stamp my passport with an exit permit.”

    After his student visa expired, Rafael Cruz obtained political asylum in the U.S.

    for how long was he in the US illegally before he received political asylum?

    He then found work with the oil industry in Canada and became a Canadian citizen

    BREAKING: Ted Cruz: ‘I Will Renounce Any Canadian Citizenship’

    After a spokesman initially denied that Cruz was a dual citizen, the senator said in a statement that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship.

    “Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship.

    “Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/could-ted-cruz-be-the-first-canadian-american-president/

  74. avatar
    JPotter August 19, 2013 at 10:40 pm #

    Slartibartfast: the Founders probably wouldn’t have considered him natural born

    What makes you say that? The citizenship of children born to subjects while abroad had already been tackled and had plenty of precedence in English law, centuries before 1776. Surveying attitudes toward citizenship in general, in my ( :P ) opinion, a nation’s citizenship laws can be said to be either inclusive or exclusive (generally speaking). England’s laws were always inclusive, as the king wanted as many subjects as possible (got to maintain that tax base!), and America’s have been inclusive as well, from the beginning (new country, needs all the citizens it can get!).

    There have been many a wave of xenophobic, nativist, racist sentiments determined to exclude one group or another from either political rights or citizenship entirely (Indians, Irish, Blacks, Chinese … women in general…!), and each wave has foundered upon striking the Supreme Court, which has, in decision after decision, always (ultimately), found on the side of inclusivity.

    I hope you enjoyed my run-ons :)

  75. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

    donna:

    After a spokesman initially denied that Cruz was a dual citizen, the senator said in a statement that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship.

    That didn’t take long!

  76. avatar
    donna August 19, 2013 at 10:48 pm #

    Rickey: That didn’t take long!

    any question that he is running in 2016?

  77. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 19, 2013 at 11:01 pm #

    Not in my mind.

    donna:
    Rickey: That didn’t take long!

    any question that he is running in 2016?

  78. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 2:13 am #

    You think you write run-ons? I’ve written sentences decades ago that haven’t ended yet…

    Try this:

    I’ll just give you the quick and dirty answer: The first Congress, mad up of many of the Founders, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, saw fit to make the children of citizen fathers born overseas natural born citizens, which implies (to me anyway) that they thought that such children were not natural born under the Constitution as written, furthermore, no law has been passed since which explicitly makes children of US citizens, born outside of the US, natural born, thus, in my view, the Founders would regard a child, made a citizen by a statute which did not make them natural born, as ineligible for the presidency and while, as I said, I don’t think that any court would rule as much and the law, per Jack Maskell’s CRS report, would seem to indicate that anyone who becomes a citizen at birth is natural born, excepting, of course, the “naturalized at birth” class from Rodgers v. Bellei where was I going with this? :P

    Anyway, that’s just what I think they would have thought on the letter of the law, for whatever that’s worth (not much).

    JPotter: What makes you say that? The citizenship of children born to subjects while abroad had already been tackled and had plenty of precedence in English law, centuries before 1776. Surveying attitudes toward citizenship in general, in my ( ) opinion, a nation’s citizenship laws can be said to be either inclusive or exclusive (generally speaking). England’s laws were always inclusive, as the king wanted as many subjects as possible (got to maintain that tax base!), and America’s have been inclusive as well, from the beginning (new country, needs all the citizens it can get!).

    There have been many a wave of xenophobic, nativist, racist sentiments determined to exclude one group or another from either political rights or citizenship entirely (Indians, Irish, Blacks, Chinese … women in general…!), and each wave has foundered upon striking the Supreme Court, which has, in decision after decision, always (ultimately), found on the side of inclusivity.

    I hope you enjoyed my run-ons

  79. avatar
    JPotter August 20, 2013 at 2:37 am #

    Slartibartfast: The first Congress, mad up of many of the Founders, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, saw fit to make the children of citizen fathers born overseas natural born citizens, which implies (to me anyway) that they thought that such children were not natural born under the Constitution as written,

    Yes, I can see your logic, however, I would argue that the 1790 Act was passed to fulfill the mandate in the Constitution to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, to regulate the granting of American citizenship across the states. Thus, it wasn’t written to revise previous thought, rather to standardize it across the states, eliminating the variances that made naturalization, along with lack of a national taxing power, one of the key issues driving the calling of the 1787 convention.

    As for why the Constitution didn’t include a Uniform Rule, why it passed the buck … the Constitution is a plan of gov’t, the big picture. The questions of citizenship are a governmental responsibility; the existence of the responsibility is recognized and assigned by the Constitution. The execution of it is left to the functioning government, to be decided and enforced according to the Constitution. Analogous to the Constitution saying Congress can tax, but not specifying specific taxes and rates. Imagine it taking an Amendment to adjust the income tax table!

  80. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 3:28 am #

    I have sent an e-mail to Mario Apuzzo, asking for his opinion on a Rafael Edward Cruz presidential campaign. I have also posted a timer, to see how long it takes for him or Orly Taitz, to respond.

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2013/08/my-e-mail-to-mario-apuzzo.html

    Join me in my hypocrisy watch.

  81. avatar
    helen August 20, 2013 at 3:46 am #

    hypocrites can never recognize themselves as being hypocrites, because they believe that their beliefs, must be true.

    Being hypocritical might expose the hypocritically of it all.

  82. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 3:56 am #

    What worthless sophistry, Helen. We’re all hypocrites in some way or other and we stop being hypocrites by being objective and honest about ourselves (which leads to being objective and honest in our dealings with others) and changing our behavior or our opinions when we see hypocrisy in our thoughts or actions.

    But I guess you wouldn’t know anything about integrity, introspection, morality, or self-improvement, would you?

    helen:
    hypocrites can never recognize themselves as being hypocrites, because they believe that their beliefs, must be true.

    Being hypocritical might expose the hypocritically of it all.

  83. avatar
    The Magic M August 20, 2013 at 4:17 am #

    helen:
    the USA birth certificate
    jurisdication
    in that the it is in the proper form
    the seal is that that meets
    artificates

    Looks like ODS has already started to eat your brain.

    Slartibartfast: The first Congress, mad up of many of the Founders, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, saw fit to make the children of citizen fathers born overseas natural born citizens, which implies (to me anyway) that they thought that such children were not natural born under the Constitution as written

    I think an even more important conclusion is that the Founders obviously did not subscribe to the “natural born citizens are made by nature and not by law” notion that birthers claim as “truth”. If they did, they would not have passed a law (!) making certain people “natural born citizens”.
    This is another thing no birther was able to give me an answer to. It’s one of their dead ends where, once it comes up in a discussion, they fall silent or resort to personal attacks.

  84. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 4:32 am #

    That’s not true, they can also change the subject or move the goalposts. The only thing they absolutely can’t answer is why the Founders felt they could legislate additions to the class of natural born citizens. They’ll bail one way or the other before you can point out the similarities with English citizenship law… hmm…

    The Magic M: This is another thing no birther was able to give me an answer to. It’s one of their dead ends where, once it comes up in a discussion, they fall silent or resort to personal attacks.

  85. avatar
    Sean August 20, 2013 at 5:05 am #

    misha marinsky: Hey Fuzzy: Wrong site. You should be commenting at WND.

    Let’s see what WND has to say!

  86. avatar
    Sudoku August 20, 2013 at 5:08 am #

    Mario published an articled on his blog, dated March 25, 2013, “Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President”

    misha marinsky:
    I have sent an e-mail to Mario Apuzzo, asking for his opinion on a Rafael Edward Cruz presidential campaign. I have also posted a timer, to see how long it takes for him or Orly Taitz, to respond.

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2013/08/my-e-mail-to-mario-apuzzo.html

    Join me in my hypocrisy watch.

  87. avatar
    Sean August 20, 2013 at 5:14 am #

    donna:
    Rickey: That didn’t take long!

    any question that he is running in 2016?

    He’ll lose the primary. Not likable enough.

  88. avatar
    Suranis August 20, 2013 at 7:34 am #

    Good thing they had that likable candidate, Mitt Romney, last time around.

  89. avatar
    JPotter August 20, 2013 at 8:33 am #

    Sean: He’ll lose the primary. Not likable enough.

    rMoney won by the virtue of being everyone’s second choice. Without a dominant 1st choice, if everyone has the same 2nd choice, Mr. 2nd Choice will inevitably win the circular firing squad that is the primary process.

    Cruz will be a niche 1st choice, a Flavor of the Week. He’ll never be everyone’s 2nd choice. Unless he’s the most moderate candidate running (yikes!). If that’s the case, the Reds may as well take a cycle off, and save their $$$!

  90. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater August 20, 2013 at 8:44 am #

    JPotter: So, just save the WH PDF as a JPEG and PDF madness goes away?

    Dang, I wish I had thought of that …

    That is one heck of a goofy-ass looking’ BC Cruz put out. Is that a piece of smashed bubblegum passing for a seal?!?

    And why so tiny? I haven’t seen a link to any higher resolution image than what’s on the Dallas morning news site. Unless the original is greeting-card size, then this scan is roughly a net 48dpi. Why try to minimize the information?

    Or export the Cruz BC as a PDF and it instantly become invalid!

  91. avatar
    Woodrowfan August 20, 2013 at 8:46 am #

    apparently he’s also a Cuban citizen because of his father.

  92. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater August 20, 2013 at 8:48 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    Here’s a few fun facts about one Presidential Candidate…

    The candidate was born in a country that still swears allegiance to the British Monarch…

    As a result of that birth, the candidate was born with dual citizenship (possibly try-citizenship) at birth.That citizenship, as far as I know, has never gone away, so he’s most likely a citizen of multiple countries.

    The candidate’s father fought in a revolution to install a communist as dictator, was tortured by the U.S. backed leader of that country as a because of that.(Can you imangine what the right-wing would say if Obama’s father had fought for a communist?)

    That candidate’s name is Ted Cruz.

    So you’re saying Cruz likes to pal around with terrorists?

  93. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater August 20, 2013 at 8:52 am #

    JPotter: rMoney won by the virtue of being everyone’s second choice. Without a dominant 1st choice, if everyone has the same 2nd choice, Mr. 2nd Choice will inevitably win the circular firing squad that is the primary process.

    Cruz will be a niche 1st choice, a Flavor of the Week. He’ll never be everyone’s 2nd choice. Unless he’s the most moderate candidate running (yikes!). If that’s the case, the Reds may as well take a cycle off, and save their $$$!

    I think if Santorum runs again he will be the 2nd choice. Compared to all those looneys he would be a moderate.

  94. avatar
    John Reilly August 20, 2013 at 9:27 am #

    helen:
    hypocrites can never recognize themselves as being hypocrites, because they believe that their beliefs, must be true.

    Being hypocritical might expose the hypocritically of it all.

    Ah, Helen the Troll is back. Helen, are you going to explain the factual basis you had to conclude that McCain and Palin are natural born citizens? You voted for them.

  95. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 9:28 am #

    Sudoku: Mario published an articled on his blog, dated March 25, 2013, “Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President”

    Thanks. I never read his turgid drivel. I looked at it, after I saw your comment.

    I did ask him, “When are you going to initiate a lawsuit against this candidate who has dual citizenship?” In a subsequent e-mail, I asked Mario “Are you and Orly Taitz going to file against him?”

    Remember, David Farrar wrote he would file against Romney and never did. Mario filed against Obama, and encouraged others like Paige. Orly egged on military members, with disastrous results.

    So let’s see if they do the same against Rafael Edward Cruz.

  96. avatar
    John Reilly August 20, 2013 at 9:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Let us consider the esteemed Abraham Lincoln, born in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. According to the Constitution as it was adopted in 1789, people born where Lincoln was born were not born in the United States, nor citizens of the United States, and therefore not eligible to become President.

    Kentucky only became a State through a statute. Therefore Lincoln was only eligible to be President because of a statute that fundamentally changed who was born a citizen.

    This appears to be the position of Helen the Troll, that Hawaii, not being mentioned in the Constitution, can’t be the birthplace of a President. She does not explain how Illinois birth qualified Pres. Reagan.

  97. avatar
    Keith August 20, 2013 at 9:59 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I think if Santorum runs again he will be the 2nd choice.Compared to all those looneys he would be a moderate.

    That is like saying that when everything is red, pink is blue.

  98. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater August 20, 2013 at 10:08 am #

    Keith: That is like saying that when everything is red, pink is blue.

    Well Republicans do have a tendancy of nominating previous losers.

  99. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 10:24 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:Well Republicans do have a tendancy of nominating previous losers.

    Yeah, like Nixon.

  100. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 10:37 am #

    ZixiOfIx: Of course, they also make the argument that Congress cannot interpret or change the meaning of “Natural Born” through mere laws. If that is so, then any law about the age of the mother is without meaning, and Obama is an NBC, regardless of where he was born (Hawaii, for those just tuning in).

    This is actually a question I have been pondering, but have never made the effort to research. How can Congress effectively change the Constitution by statute? To change the Constitution, one needs an amendment. Furthermore, Congress only have the power to pass legislation create “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Art II, Sec. 8), so by definition, wouldn’t Cruz and John McCain be naturalized citizens. Of course President Obama, born on US soil fits the Common Law and 14th Amendment definitions of NBC, so that is a different question (thus making the age of his mother totally irrelevant).

    Dr. Conspiracy: Let us consider the esteemed Abraham Lincoln, born in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. According to the Constitution as it was adopted in 1789, people born where Lincoln was born were not born in the United States, nor citizens of the United States, and therefore not eligible to become President.
    Kentucky only became a State through a statute. Therefore Lincoln was only eligible to be President because of a statute that fundamentally changed who was born a citizen.

    However, the Constitution does grant Congress the power to add states to the Union (Art. IV, Sec. 3), and the definition of NBC doesn’t change (w/i the territory and subjec tot the jurisdiciton). Congress has changed the pool of NBC, but not the defintion.

    JPotter: Yes, I can see your logic, however, I would argue that the 1790 Act was passed to fulfill the mandate in the Constitution to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, to regulate the granting of American citizenship across the states. Thus, it wasn’t written to revise previous thought, rather to standardize it across the states, eliminating the variances that made naturalization, along with lack of a national taxing power, one of the key issues driving the calling of the 1787 convention.

    But can you create a “Natural Born” citizen through a “Uniform Rule of Naturalization”? If you are relying on a rule of naturalization, how can you be considered “Natural Born”.

    JPotter: As for why the Constitution didn’t include a Uniform Rule, why it passed the buck …

    Perhaps being mostly lawyers, they assumed everyone how mattered knew the defintion from Calvin’s Case and the Common Law?

    The Magic M: I think an even more important conclusion is that the Founders obviously did not subscribe to the “natural born citizens are made by nature and not by law” notion that birthers claim as “truth”. If they did, they would not have passed a law (!) making certain people “natural born citizens”.

    That’s something I don’t have an answer for…but that language didn’t hang around for very long before it was struck. Perhaps they realized the error of their ways. This was more than a decade before Marbury v. Madison established the prinicpal of judicial review, so could have been Congressional self policing on questions of Constitutionality? I have no idea.

    OK…so those are my totally unresearched questions regarding someone who fails the common law definition of NBC, and still claiming to be NBC.

  101. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater August 20, 2013 at 10:39 am #

    misha marinsky: Yeah, like Nixon.

    Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2013 at 11:09 am #

    While I do not think that Congress can change the definition of “natural born citizen”, I do believe that they can change the status of individuals so that they meet the definition. I don’t see any qualitative difference between legislation adding a state (and thereby making new citizens at birth) and making citizens at birth through legislation under the naturalization powers.

    I should point out that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen.” One has to look elsewhere for the definition.

    For a definition, I look to the first Congress, who in 1790 by legislation made certain persons natural born citizens who were not natural born citizens before. Those Congressmen, one of whom is recognized as the principal author of the Constitution, decided that they could by legislation create natural born citizens, and the former President of the Constitutional Convention, as President of the United States, signed that bill into law. I do not think that the actions of the First Congress and President Washington are easily dismissed, nor are arguments of carelessness on their part credible.

    The clear implication of the 1790 Act (and the Oxford English Dictionary) is that to our founders “natural born citizen” meant “citizen at birth.” So the question that remains is whether the Constitution’s naturalization provision gives Congress the power to create citizens at birth (in contrast to the usual understanding of naturalization–making someone a citizen after birth). The Congress has and does create citizens at birth (even in some cases retroactively) and I don’t know of any challenge to them doing that. (Judge Alsup in Robinson v. Bowen even opined that a retroactive act of Congress made John McCain a natural born citizen.) I see no objection to Congress, to use your terms, changing the pool of NBC, through its naturalization powers.

    (If you were to invoke the English Common Law as both defining the term “natural born subject” and restrictively defining the status of persons who meet the definition, then I would point you to the various British acts that create natural born subjects as argument against that position. That is, in 1789 Americans had a contemporary example of British legislation that expanded the pool of natural born subjects. Or put another way, I think that saying that English Common Law defines membership in the class of natural born subjects is the same mistake as saying that Minor v. Happersett defines membership in the class of natural born citizens–it is confusing necessary with sufficient conditions.)

    JoZeppy: However, the Constitution does grant Congress the power to add states to the Union (Art. IV, Sec. 3), and the definition of NBC doesn’t change (w/i the territory and subject tot the jurisdiction). Congress has changed the pool of NBC, but not the definition.

  103. avatar
    The Magic M August 20, 2013 at 11:14 am #

    misha marinsky: So let’s see if they do the same against Rafael Edward Cruz.

    ‘Course they won’t. They have found an “excuse”, namely the “Obama set a precedent so I can’t be bothered anymore since anything goes now” argument. It’s their version of “original sin”, but basically just a lame excuse for only holding the black guy to their maniacal standards.

  104. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 11:43 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Clearly the Congress has and does create citizens at birth (even in some cases retroactively) and I don’t know of any challenge to them doing that. So I assert that Congress can create citizens at birth. (Judge Alsup in Robinson v. Bowen) opined that a retroactive act of Congress made John McCain a natural born citizen.

    Looks like Robinson v. Bowen and Rogers v. Bellei might finally answer my questions definitively. Thanks. I can no longer argue from ignorance.

  105. avatar
    Kelly August 20, 2013 at 12:35 pm #

    My understanding is that his father didn’t become an American citizen until 2005 – so Mr. Cruz actually has TRI- citizenship???

    ARTICLES OF CUBAN CITIZENSHIP
    Cuban citizens by birth are:
    i.those born in national territory, with the exception of the children of foreign persons at the service of their government or international organizations. In the case of the children of temporary foreign residents in the country, the law stipulates the requisites and formalities;
    ii.those born abroad, one of whose parents at least is Cuban and on an official mission;
    iii.those born abroad, one of whose parents at least is Cuban, who have complied with the formalities stipulated by law;
    iv.those born outside national territory, one of whose parents at least is Cuban and who lost their Cuban citizenship provide they apply for said citizenship according to the procedures stated by law;
    v.foreigners who, by virtue of their exceptional merits won in the struggles for Cubans liberation, were considered Cuban citizens by birth.

  106. avatar
    roadburner August 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

    the way the birfoons are spinning over this at the moment reminds me of an old english joke.

    ` there was a couple living in wales who were very happy together, but as bad luck would have it, the husband sadly passed away at the age of 40 of a fatal desease, leaving his sweet wife alone.

    fate played a curious hand, and 2 years later, she died in a road accident.

    she found herself happily in heaven and approached the pearly gates and spoke to st peter `hi, im mrs jones, and id like to be reunited with my dear husband

    st peter looked up and frowned `do you know how many mr joness we have here from wales? this could take half an eternity to find him…..is there anything special between you that would helf narrow it down a bit?

    `yes she said, `i promised that i would never be unfaithful to his memory, and he said if i was to be unfaithful hed turn over in his grave

    `ah! said st peter and called over gabriel `go and tell revolving jones that his wife has arrived

    :D

  107. avatar
    JPotter August 20, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

    JoZeppy: But can you create a “Natural Born” citizen through a “Uniform Rule of Naturalization”? If you are relying on a rule of naturalization, how can you be considered “Natural Born”.

    For the purposes of the 1790 act, it was necessary to define who didn’t require naturalization, who were natural born. People who did not, as you say, have to rely on a rule of naturalization. This definition needed to be established at the Federal level, as it was not uniform across the states … that is, there were variations in not only the process of / requirements for naturalization, but also who needed/didn’t need to be naturalized.

    Of course, being impossible to address every possible circumstance, various unaddressed circumstance have generated court cases throughout our history.

    Supposedly, no further Legislation address the definition of NBC…

    Many countries define citizenship in their constitutions. Our does not …. that it marked off a forest but left the tree-planting to the government is one of the main reasons it has endured, I think.

  108. avatar
    nbc August 20, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    I do not think that the actions of the First Congress and President Washington are easily dismissed, nor are arguments of carelessness on their part credible.

    Thus when they removed the term natural born in 1795, it was not careless either? It was clear that birth on soil was the common law definition. When they copied an English law, they may have accidentally left in the term ‘considered as natural born’ and as some have pointed out being considered as natural born may not have made them natural born for the eligibility clause.

  109. avatar
    nbc August 20, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

    For the purposes of the 1790 act, it was necessary to define who didn’t require naturalization, who were natural born

    That’s an interesting Wikipedia interpretation, but Congress has only the power to define uniform rules of naturalization, and naturalization merely means that one’s status is determined by statute. Which is why the act was titled: An Act to Establish Uniform Rules of Naturalization.

    This was done in part to ‘take care of the issue of children born to US citizens abroad’. Under our Constitution their status was quite tenuous as they were not born on soil. Mr Burke suggested that we do it like the English had done in the 12th year of William III.

    To understand the meaning of naturalized, you need to look at how they courts have used the term, and in US v WKA, they court clearly argues that the status of such children is handled through naturalization.

    Other courts have hinted to similar interpretations. In Rogers v Bellei we find this reference to US v WKA

    “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

  110. avatar
    nbc August 20, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

    So I assert that Congress can create citizens at birth. (Judge Alsup in Robinson v. Bowen) opined that a retroactive act of Congress made John McCain a natural born citizen.

    We have to be careful here. The Judge denied a preliminary injunction claiming that the plaintiff had not made his case sufficiently.

    This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

    Somehow, Dr C’s claim made it sound stronger than this. I do not even believe that the order has any precedential relevance at it was a ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction.

  111. avatar
    JPotter August 20, 2013 at 1:57 pm #

    nbc: That’s an interesting Wikipedia interpretation,

    No use or reference to Wiki on my part; if I had, I would have cited it. I’m referring to my memory, which is dangerous … and have been expecting one of my betters to slap me down hard any second!

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    Huffpo markup of Cruz birth certificate (as seen through the eyes of a birther).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/ted-cruz-birth-certificate_n_3786083.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

    It’s interesting, but I don’t think it works because it includes a proviso, that the father had to have previously been a resident of the United States. If the Act was only declarative, then where did that proviso come from?

    nbc: For the purposes of the 1790 act, it was necessary to define who didn’t require naturalization, who were natural born

    That’s an interesting Wikipedia interpretation, but Congress has only the power to define uniform rules of naturalization, and naturalization merely means that one’s status is determined by statute. Which is why the act was titled: An Act to Establish Uniform Rules of Naturalization.

  114. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

    Kelly: My understanding is that his father didn’t become an American citizen until 2005 – so Mr. Cruz actually has TRI- citizenship???

    Your interpretation is correct. But that is only a concern with the black guy.

  115. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

    I’ve gone back and looked at Robinson v. Bowen, and the case it relied on for the premise that Congress has the power of defining citizeinsip, including citizenship by reason of birth, Rogers v. Bellei. And while can’t argue that it certainly does seem to lean the way of giving Congress the power to define NBC, there is still some ambiguity, and certainly cries for more research. As nbc mentioend above, Robinson v. Bowen is just a denial of preliminary injuction, that does not go very deep. Also, Robinson v. Bowen used the phrase “citizenship by reason of birth.” Now I’ve certainly seen the court use native and natural born interchangably. I don’t know if I can say the same for “citizen by reason of birth” used in the same way. Again, I’m not saying it hasn’t. I just can’t seem to recall it being used with any frequency.

    Now moving onto Rogers v Bellei, the Court repeated makes reference to the process of naturalization. It cites to WKA forh the recognition that “naturalization by descent” was not part of the commonlaw, but a statutory enactment. It goes on to quote US v. Ginsberg for the premise that “no alien has the sligtest right to naturalization unless all statutory requiremnts are complied with.” And of course, the statute in question said “citizen at birth.” So from all appearances, the Court treated Bellei as naturalized. It is also worth pointing out that in Justice Black’s dissent, (which was arguing that Bellei’s citizenship could not be taken away), he explicitly makes that point, stating that Bellei, “constiutionally speaing [was] ‘naturalized in the United State.'” He goes on to say that anyone who acquires citizenship under the Constitution’s grant of power to pass uniform naturalization is a naturalized citizen. Justice Black also points out that the majority does rely on the argument that Bellei might have been a naturalized citizen, but was not naturalized in the US, to get it out from under the 14th Amendment. But of course, this is the dissent.

    All that said, if there really is this ambiguity in the case law, I don’t see how it can be resolved (short of a clear amendment). The only time NBC matters is for Presidential elections. As the birthers have discovered, and as we saw with McCain’s run, it’s pretty hard to get standing, and furthermore, the courts really don’t want to get between the people and their choice (at least not at this current point). Perhaps I just need to research it more, and submit an article to a journal like I’ve been saying for the past 5 years.

  116. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 3:09 pm #

    I think an interesting perspective for such an article would be to explore the way an eligibility challenge should be handled and present the arguments on either side of any legal proceeding. I always thought that jbjd (a former commenter at Texas Darlin’ and drk(H)ate’s) had it right—challenge placement of the candidate on the ballot in individual states—if President Obama were truly ineligible. Just my $0.02.

    JoZeppy: Perhaps I just need to research it more, and submit an article to a journal like I’ve been saying for the past 5 years.

  117. avatar
    Patricia Shelton August 20, 2013 at 4:43 pm #

    A question no one is asking is if it is even legal for a dual citizen to be a U.S. Senator? If he hasn’t renounced until now his citizenship of Canada then how do we know he wasn’t trying to ‘spy’ for Canada from within the Senate? Just to be as ‘dumb’ as the original birthers.

    I am laughing, and will continue to laugh, at this ‘issue’ when it shouldn’t have been one for Obama or now Cruz but because of the right-wing nut jobs, Fox News, Limbaugh, etc the Tea Party and Birthers were born and now we are left with the aftermath. All who thought/think Obama wasn’t born a U.S. citizen has to oppose Cruz too – or egg on the face. This is too funny!

  118. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I always thought that jbjd (a former commenter at Texas Darlin’ and drk(H)ate’s) had it right—challenge placement of the candidate on the ballot in individual states

    But then you would have to find a state that does not require standing (voter still doesn’t have an individualized harm) AND permits the state to make determinations of candidate’s qualifications…and then it still runs the risk of losing on the argument that the states don’t even have the power to challenge how a party determines its candidates.

  119. avatar
    justlw August 20, 2013 at 6:52 pm #

    The Magic M: They have found an “excuse”, namely the “Obama set a precedent so I can’t be bothered anymore since anything goes now” argument.

    ♫In olden days a glimpse of kerning
    Would set off some crosses burning
    But Ted Cruz knows:
    Anything Goes!♫

    I’m sorry; wrong thread?

  120. avatar
    JD Reed August 20, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: For a definition, I look to the first Congress, who in 1790 by legislation made certain persons natural born citizens whothrough legislation under the naturalization powers.I should point out that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen.” One has to look elsewhere for the definition… Those Congressmen, one of whom is recognized as the principal author of the Constitution, decided that they could by legislation create natural born citizens, and the former President of the Constitutional Convention, as President of the United States, signed that bill into law. I do not think that the actions of the First Congress and President Washington are easily dismissed, nor are arguments of carelessness on their part credible.

    Doc, here’s Supreme Court backing for your argument above:

    “The construction placed upon the Constitution by the first (copyright) act of 1790 and the act of 1802, by the men who were contemporary with its formation, many of whom were members of the convention which framed it, is of itself entitled to very great weight, and when it is remembered that the rights thus established have not been disputed during a period of nearly a century, it is almost conclusive.”
    –From Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony – 111 U.S. 53 (1884)
    Note that the first copyright law referenced in this case was passed in the exact same year as the naturalization law at issue. Thus, would not the above principle apply equally to the citizenship law?

  121. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 9:15 pm #

    Some states don’t require standing for voter challenges, but in others the challenge would have to come from another candidate. This would seem to be simpler for an intra-party challenge in the primary than in the general (fewer Constitutional issues to parse, I would imagine), but I tend to think that the courts would an ineligible candidate from the ballot in the face of a legitimate challenge. I believe that California did it to an underage candidate in a case Orly is always screeching about. If the courts all ducked due to the political issue, this would leave the certification of the vote by Congress as the only line of defense against an ineligible candidate which seems suboptimal at best.

    Anyway, this is all my personal, non-lawyerly, opinion so feel free to determine its credibility accordingly… :-P

    JoZeppy: But then you would have to find a state that does not require standing (voter still doesn’t have an individualized harm) AND permits the state to make determinations of candidate’s qualifications…and then it still runs the risk of losing on the argument that the states don’t even have the power to challenge how a party determines its candidates.

  122. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

    JD Reed: Note that the first copyright law referenced in this case was passed in the exact same year as the naturalization law at issue. Thus, would not the above principle apply equally to the citizenship law?

    Except that unlike the Copyright act, the Naturalization Act was repealed five years later by “by the men who were contemporary with its formation, many of whom were members of the convention which framed it,” and a new act passes without reference to Natural Born Citizen. Thus it cannot be said that, ” the rights thus established have not been disputed during a period of nearly a century.”

  123. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 10:16 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Some states don’t require standing for voter challenges, but in others the challenge would have to come from another candidate.This would seem to be simpler for an intra-party challenge in the primary than in the general (fewer Constitutional issues to parse, I would imagine), but I tend to think that the courts would an ineligible candidate from the ballot in the face of a legitimate challenge.I believe that California did it to an underage candidate in a case Orly is always screeching about.If the courts all ducked due to the political issue, this would leave the certification of the vote by Congress as the only line of defense against an ineligible candidate which seems suboptimal at best.

    Anyway, this is all my personal, non-lawyerly, opinion so feel free to determine its credibility accordingly…

    There is still the argument that the states don’t have any power to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for federal office, in that it is a function of the parties to decide how to choose their nominees. It was repeatedly raised in the Motions to Dismiss. I don’t recall the specifics, or even if a court ever ruled on that issue (rather than killing it for any number of other reasons).

  124. avatar
    SixSixSix August 21, 2013 at 12:55 am #

    Ok, I lived in Calgary in 1970 three blocks from the Foothills Hospital. That would have been two years after Alberta join the Canadian Medicare System. Cruz would have gestated and been born under socialized medicine. Gives a whole new meaning to “I knew you before you born.”

    Ted Cruz was born to a Cuban citizen who fought for Fidel Castro. True! Check it out. Daddy Cruz fought on the side of Castro against Baptista. Why do you think he was in Canada, Socialist friendly under Trudeau and not in the US, not so Socialist friendly under Nixon in his first term. Daddy goes Stateside four years later – right after the end of the Draft. True! Check it out. Coincidence? Almost certainly not, I knew a number of Latin Americans who held off going Stateside at the time for that reason.

    Now for the fun part. I never once saw daddy Cruz or his barely known so-called American mother even once. And as I said, I lived only three blocks away, the American community in Calgary was not all that big. The story is that Cruz was born in Cuba. Cuban Intelligence smuggled him into Canada as sleeper to eventually penetrate the US. You know that TV show The Russian. Yeah, like that, or The Cubans. It worked. Pass it on to every Tea Party stalwart you meet. They deserve it.

  125. avatar
    helen August 21, 2013 at 4:09 am #

    Why can not a naturalized citizen run for president?

    The citizen is a citizen entitled to all of the benefits of American Society?

    Why can not a Mexican Child delivered in the USA while the parents were visiting run for president?

    It is obvious that there is a difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen otherwise all citizens would be eligible to run the for the presidentcy.

    So, what is the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.

    In my opinion it lies in the confusion between native-born and natural born, and no one seem to want to take that to court and have it decided in the SCOTUS.

    But maybe that fact is that they don’t want their candidate to be declared not eligible and to hell with the Constitution if that should occur.

  126. avatar
    The Magic M August 21, 2013 at 4:25 am #

    helen: In my opinion it lies in the confusion between native-born and natural born

    What confusion? Native born citizens are natural born citizens, with the exception of children of foreign diplomats, invading armies and (no longer applicable) Indians not taxed. *That* is the difference that birthers claim must be “two citizen parents”.

  127. avatar
    brygenon August 21, 2013 at 4:29 am #

    nbc: Somehow, Dr C’s claim made it sound stronger than this. I do not even believe that the order has any precedential relevance at it was a ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction.

    Real-word indications are that you’ve misjudged which things are significant. Robinson v. Bowen is rather prominent in the Congressional Research Service’s reports on the eligibility, which, besides their influence on Congress, are getting a lot of play in press articles about Cruz’s eligibility.

  128. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 7:21 am #

    helen: Why can not a naturalized citizen run for president?

    Because the Constitution requires a natural born citizen.

    helen:
    The citizen is a citizen entitled to all of the benefits of American Society?

    Except for the office of president and vice-president, which requires a natural born citizen.

    helen: Why can not a Mexican Child delivered in the USA while the parents were visiting run for president?

    Unless his parents are diplomats, he can. There is nothing in the law that would stop him,

    helen: It is obvious that there is a difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen otherwise all citizens would be eligible to run the for the presidentcy.

    Obviously, natural born citizen is a subset of citizen, as is naturalized citizen. We have two types of citizens, natural born, or naturalized. You’re one or the other.

    helen: So, what is the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.

    See above.

    helen: In my opinion it lies in the confusion between native-born and natural born, and no one seem to want to take that to court and have it decided in the SCOTUS.

    The confusion only seems to be “in your opinion.” The SCOTUS has used natural born and native born interchangeably. And but for the very narrow exception of children of diplomats, all native borns are natural born citizens. And several birthers have tried to take it to SCOTUS, but their arguments are so totally without merit, the court denied cert without requiring a respondent’s brief.

    helen: But maybe that fact is that they don’t want their candidate to be declared not eligible and to hell with the Constitution if that should occur.

    Or maybe the birthers are so genuinely un-American that they will make up silly things like “two parent” rules, that have no basis in American jurisprudence to attack the legitimacy of a president that doesn’t conform to their ideological bent?

    You see, I support my legal arguments with actual law. You just spout off wild claims without even trying to provide any legal support for your claims. Some of us are perfectly willing to examine the law, and perhaps accept there might be something we’ve missed in the law. You just assume you are right, although you have no basis for those conclusions, and in fact the entire body of American jurisprudence clearly states you are dead wrong.

    Hope that cleared up your, “confusion.”

    But somehow I doubt it.

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2013 at 7:32 am #

    Loren, are you reading this? Are we seeing the beginning of Cruz Conspiracy Theories?

    SixSixSix: Cuban Intelligence smuggled him into Canada as sleeper to eventually penetrate the US.

  130. avatar
    JPotter August 21, 2013 at 8:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Are we seeing the beginning of Cruz Conspiracy Theories?

    You did note the website was available … !

    There’s an awful lot of satire and parody floating around (I think SixSixSix is engaging in such…), all in good fun until some invented rumor goes urban legend. Is there any wannabe serious conspiracizing going on? Other then the insistence that leftists are birfin’ on Cruz?

    Gonna need a better Poe-meter!

  131. avatar
    The Magic M August 21, 2013 at 9:34 am #

    JPotter: Is there any wannabe serious conspiracizing going on?

    I suppose with the exception of Vattelists, birthers will reserve Cruz birtherism to the time when Cruz actually becomes the GOP nominee and the Dem candidate is white; right now their mindset still is “better a Hispanic than a black guy”.

  132. avatar
    donna August 21, 2013 at 9:34 am #

    (Lorelyn Penero) Miller v. (Madeline) Albright (1998)

    Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice joined.

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

  133. avatar
    gorefan August 21, 2013 at 10:18 am #

    SixSixSix: The story is that Cruz was born in Cuba. Cuban Intelligence smuggled him into Canada as sleeper to eventually penetrate the US.

    Maybe Donofrio had it right. His worst nightmare come true.

    “Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President.”

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/bon-appetite-birth-certificate/

    We need to see the father’s immigration files and FBI files. LOL

  134. avatar
    misha marinsky August 21, 2013 at 10:53 am #

    helen: Why can not a Mexican Child delivered in the USA while the parents were visiting run for president?

    JoZeppy: Unless his parents are diplomats, he can. There is nothing in the law that would stop him,

    Yeah, but what happens if two American citizens have a baby in a Mars colony? Can he run for president, or just president of the United Federation?

    For this, we have to look at the precedent set by George Romney. He was born to two American citizens in a polygamy colony in Mexico. Mexico is not Mars, but it’s close enough.

  135. avatar
    misha marinsky August 21, 2013 at 11:15 am #

    helen: So, what is the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.

    An excellent question. I’m glad you asked. It is explained in detail by Shakespeare:

    “…for none of woman born
    Shall harm Macbeth.”

    and

    “I bear a charmed life, which must not yield
    To one of woman born.”

    Finally,

    “Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother’s womb
    Untimely ripp’d.”

    So there you have it. Natural born precludes Cesarean birth. Otherwise, Macbeth would still be alive.

  136. avatar
    misha marinsky August 21, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    SixSixSix: The story is that Cruz was born in Cuba. Cuban Intelligence smuggled him into Canada as sleeper to eventually penetrate the US.

    We had an agreement. Thanks. NOT

  137. avatar
    Kelly August 21, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

    I personally think that Ted Cruz was fed Communist milk from his obviously un-American mother’s breast, who left her own country and people to marry a Castro follower to live in a socialist country. Sound familiar??

  138. avatar
    JPotter August 21, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    The Magic M: I suppose with the exception of Vattelists, birthers will reserve Cruz birtherism to the time when Cruz actually becomes the GOP nominee and the Dem candidate is white; right now their mindset still is “better a Hispanic than a black guy”.

    Unless you’re suggesting the birfers are going to go Democratic, then no. They would birf on Cruz until he becsme the GOP nominee, then suddenly drop it.

    With the exception of overt, active, conscious racists, the primary motivator behind birtherism is party ideology; Obama is simply from the wrong party. Latent racism is the accelerant. The average, run-of-the-mill, white wingnut birfer would happily embrace a non-white Red, and congratulate themselves for being so enlightened! They just love Alan Keyes … that idiot down in Florida …. whatshisnameagain?

  139. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    A Cruz supporter is accusing Rand Paul’s people of ginning up the issue.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-ally-accuses-rand-paul-team-of-pushing-birther-issue-in-iowa/

  140. avatar
    JPotter August 21, 2013 at 2:13 pm #

    Rickey: A Cruz supporter is accusing Rand Paul’s people of ginning up the issue.

    Let the infighting begin!
    Nut on nut violence is pure entertainment butter.

    Maybe next time, like in 2015 or so, they’ll start openly campaigning for the 2020 election. “No, no, I’m not running this time, but please vote for me next time …”

  141. avatar
    Monkey Boy August 21, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    Heck no, we won’t let it go!

    ….
    After the crap we have put up with for five years from Cruz’s own Tea Party over President Obama’s birth certificate? You think you’re going to give us a big old Canadian birth certificate printed with green ink and then tell us to drop it?

    Dream on.
    ….

    Tongue-in-cheek for the irony challenged.

  142. avatar
    Keith August 21, 2013 at 8:36 pm #

    The Magic M: I suppose with the exception of Vattelists, birthers will reserve Cruz birtherism to the time when Cruz actually becomes the GOP nominee and the Dem candidate is white; right now their mindset still is “better a Hispanic than a black guy”.

    At this point it is very unlikely that the Dem will be a black guy. So… better an Hispanic than a white woman?

  143. avatar
    donna August 21, 2013 at 9:58 pm #

    what did cruz answer when he was (most likely) asked about “dual citizenship” on background check questionnaires?

    he said he was “unaware” that he had dual citizenship with canada

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/ted-cruz-citizenship-background-check.php

  144. avatar
    James M August 22, 2013 at 3:09 am #

    helen:
    Now, as to the overall effect of the BC, there is none!

    He was not born under the jurisdication of the USA, his father was not an American Citizen, his mother was.

    However, his citizenship is by legal action, as shown here:
    “A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required”

    Notice that little reference to Section 301(g) of the INA.(immigration and naturalization act)

    Which makes him a legalized citizenjust like a a naturalized citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen!

    And, I am a Republican and would not object to the Cuban American Brown Citizen as president, but not if he is a naturalized citizen instead of a NBC

    So produce evidence of Naturalization. The State Department will have that.

  145. avatar
    The Magic M August 22, 2013 at 3:50 am #

    Keith: So… better an Hispanic than a white woman?

    Tough call whether racism or misogyny takes the upper hand. Probably a tied race, they’ll hate them both with equal fervour (though I still don’t think Cruz will be the candidate in the end).

  146. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 3:52 am #

    James M: He was not born under the jurisdication of the USA, his father was not an American Citizen, his mother was.

    Just to be 100% clear: The quoted sentence is correct, however it describes two two different facts of birth, each of which has a different ‘effect’ on his citizenship.

    1) He was not born under the jurisdiction of the USA. That is true; he was born under Canadian jurisdiction. This means only that he is not protected by the part of the 14th Amendment that provides for citizens born in the USA.

    2) His father was not an American citizen, his mother was. That is also true; he became a citizen at the moment of his birth because his mother was a citizen. This means that he was not naturalized, and is not protected by the part of the 14th Amendment that provides for citizens that were naturalized in the USA.

    Taken together these two facts mean that

    1) Since he was not born or naturalized in the USA, he is not ‘a 14th Amendment Citizen’ (Rogers v Bellei).

    2) Since he became a citizen at birth, he is a Natural Born Citizen. There is a genuine technical academic debate about this, and poster nbc is one poster here who disagrees, however, the overwhelming body of opinion finds this to be the ‘common law’ definition of ‘natural born citizen': citizen at birth without respect to anything else including the citizenship status of the parents. That ‘common law’ definition has been confirmed as recently as 2008 when the Congress passed the unanimous resolution that John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone, was indeed a natural born citizen.

    3) Since he was born under Canadian jurisdiction, he may have Canadian obligations as well. If Canadian law says people born there are citizens of Canada, then he is a citizen of Canada.

    U.S. citizenship law and Canadian citizenship law are not mutually exclusive in this regard, they are additive.

    Canadian law does not void American law; Cruz is an American citizen. U.S. law does not void Canadian law; Cruz is a Canadian citizen.

    Shock horror! Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz enjoys DUAL citizenship. In fact, he is a natural born citizen of both the United States and of Canada. At the same time!

    Of course being a natural born citizen of Canada, as opposed to ‘just any ordinary citizen’ is 100% meaningless since there are no privileges or restrictions associated with it under Canadian law. A natural born citizen of Canada is ‘just an ordinary Citizen’.

    That is something to think about. If he is ever elected President, when he finishes his term(s), he could move to Canada and enter the Parliament (thereby losing his US citizenship, I think). If he gets elected Party leader and his party wins an election, he would be Prime Minister! That would be a first!

  147. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 4:02 am #

    The Magic M: (though I still don’t think Cruz will be the candidate in the end).

    Me either, but will the Party wake up in time to realize that the current noisy lunatics are unelectable under any circumstances? Will Christy be able to stomach the necessary amputation of those lunatics in order to run a credible campaign? Would Christy have the legs after that to give Hillary a run for her money?

  148. avatar
    Lupin August 22, 2013 at 4:12 am #

    Keith: Me either, but will the Party wake up in time to realize that the current noisy lunatics are unelectable under any circumstances? Will Christy be able to stomach the necessary amputation of those lunatics in order to run a credible campaign? Would Christy have the legs after that to give Hillary a run for her money?

    I think Rand Paul may (like Perot) run as a third party candidate and split to GOP vote, Christie possibly being the Money candidate.

    Then you can have Nixon. :-)

  149. avatar
    Sef August 22, 2013 at 9:26 am #

    JPotter: Imagine it taking an Amendment to adjust the income tax table!

    Have you seen the New York State Constitution? We quite regularly have to vote on what parcels of land are included in the Adirondack Park.

  150. avatar
    Sef August 22, 2013 at 9:32 am #

    JPotter: rMoney won by the virtue of being everyone’s second choice. Without a dominant 1st choice, if everyone has the same 2nd choice, Mr. 2nd Choice will inevitably win the circular firing squad that is the primary process.

    Cruz will be a niche 1st choice, a Flavor of the Week. He’ll never be everyone’s 2nd choice. Unless he’s the most moderate candidate running (yikes!). If that’s the case, the Reds may as well take a cycle off, and save their $$$!

    Can you name a recent Presidential race wherein the initial “front runner” of one of the two major parties ended up with the nomination?

  151. avatar
    The Magic M August 22, 2013 at 11:26 am #

    Keith: Me either, but will the Party wake up in time to realize that the current noisy lunatics are unelectable under any circumstances?

    I was actually confused a lot about Cruz for some time until I realized I had mixed him up with Rubio. Silly me, can’t tell one Hispanic GOP star from the other (and I can usually tell any twins apart even if they try to fool me).

  152. avatar
    JPotter August 22, 2013 at 11:48 am #

    Sef: Can you name a recent Presidential race wherein the initial “front runner” of one of the two major parties ended up with the nomination?

    Is Cruz running for anything? ;)
    If so, is he at the front?

  153. avatar
    JPotter August 22, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    Sef: Have you seen the New York State Constitution? We quite regularly have to vote on what parcels of land are included in the Adirondack Park.

    Exactly! A lot of state constitutions are like that, and other national constitutions. Here in Okieland, amendments are passed by poopular vote …. every referendum, every state question, becomes an amendment. Well over 200 amendments to the 105-yr old constitution.
    Junks it up until it has to be rebooted.

  154. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 22, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    Al Gore in 2000 or Daddy Bush in 1988.

    Sef: Can you name a recent Presidential race wherein the initial “front runner” of one of the two major parties ended up with the nomination?

  155. avatar
    Sef August 22, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Al Gore in 2000 or Daddy Bush in 1988.

    Except for previous VPs..

  156. avatar
    JPotter August 22, 2013 at 1:58 pm #

    Sef: Except for previous VPs..

    Goalposts a’rollin’! :P

    My initial observations was not about eventual winners not being frontrunners, but about various factions within a party pushing their favorites rMoney may not have been the ‘frontrunner’ of the moment, but he was always the frontrunner in terms of delegates and resources. The long-term frontrunner, if you will. Cruz is a pet favorite, if he’s anything.

  157. avatar
    GLaB August 22, 2013 at 4:46 pm #

    Uh …

    Mitt Romney was the 2012 front-runner practically from election-day 2008.

    You don’t have to take my word for it:

    Feb. 28, 2009 Romney picked as 2012 GOP front-runner

    Story Highlights
    NEW: Mitt Romney wins poll of conservative activists for 2012 presidential candidate

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/

  158. avatar
    Sef August 22, 2013 at 5:01 pm #

    GLaB:
    Uh …

    Mitt Romney was the 2012 front-runner practically from election-day 2008.

    You don’t have to take my word for it:

    Feb. 28, 2009Romney picked as 2012 GOP front-runner

    Story Highlights
    NEW: Mitt Romney wins poll of conservative activists for 2012 presidential candidate

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/

    Except for eventual losers. (It’s all about removing the obvious outliers.)

  159. avatar
    donna August 22, 2013 at 6:55 pm #

    talk about “snail mail”, did cruz’s birth records travel by escargot?

    he was born on december 22, 1970 but his birth wasn’t registered until december 31, 1970 and not “certified” until january 21, 1971?

    obama’s birth was filed by the registrar 4 days after his birth and there were controversies and conspiracies

    speaking of conspiracies, this article is replete with them: Ask a Birther: Are You Convinced by Ted Cruz’s Birth Certificate?

    the “birther” is none other than the queen, orly taitz

    the article also contains “priceless” comments from readers

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/ask-birther-ted-cruz/68531/

  160. avatar
    Jim August 22, 2013 at 8:10 pm #

    donna:
    talk about “snail mail”, did cruz’s birth records travel by escargot?

    he was born on december 22, 1970 but his birth wasn’t registered until december 31, 1970 and not “certified” until january 21, 1971?

    obama’s birth was filed by the registrar 4 days after his birth and there were controversies and conspiracies

    Come on Donna, give Cruz a break. Of course the mail moves faster in Hawaii in August than it does in Calgary in December…they’re busy with hockey in Canada!

  161. avatar
    gorefan August 22, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

    Does anyone else think the Canadian birth certificate looks like one of those print-at-home certificate?

    http://www.freeprintablecertificates.net/

  162. avatar
    John Reilly August 23, 2013 at 12:12 am #

    The Cruz birth certificate is from Canada. We need a consular certificate. If his Mother neglected to get one, she needs either a delayed certificate or he can get a Texas birth certificate today reflecting birth in Canada. After all, Pres. Eisenhower didn’t have a birth certificate until he was out of office. However, it is clear that a Canadian birth certificate is not evidence in an American court.

  163. avatar
    The Magic M August 23, 2013 at 4:16 am #

    gorefan: Does anyone else think the Canadian birth certificate looks like one of those print-at-home certificate?

    The forger also left some obvious clues, because

    “geophysical consultant”

    is an anagram of

    is suc a phogety lol, c.n.tan” (so the forger was some guy named “C.N. Tan”)

    and

    “rafael bienvenido cruz”

    is an anagram of

    Birf non e veru ID, Azacel” (one meaning of “Azazel” is “In the Bible, the evil spirit in the wilderness to whom a scapegoat was sent on the Day of Atonement.”)

    IT’S ALL SO OBVIOUS SHEEPLE!

  164. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 25, 2013 at 2:49 pm #

    What is interesting to me about this certificate is that it looks fake, sort of like Monopoly money compared to real money. Even so, I don’t doubt it. A US Senator publishing a crude fake of a birth certificate makes no sense. No one would do something like that. The certificate is just a footnote to the official story. I’m not an expert on Canadian certificates.

    Contrast that with the birthers.

  165. avatar
    charo August 25, 2013 at 3:51 pm #

    A birth certificate showing the subject born on foreign soil with potential triple citizenship makes the certificate definitely suspect, especially when voluntarily released by a possible future presidential candidate.

  166. avatar
    gorefan August 25, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    charo:
    A birth certificate showing the subject born on foreign soil with potential triple citizenship makes the certificate definitely suspect, especially when voluntarily released by a possible future presidential candidate.

    How so?

  167. avatar
    misha marinsky August 25, 2013 at 6:23 pm #

    The Magic M: “rafael bienvenido cruz”

    “Bienvenido” means ‘welcome,’ as in “Welcome to my den, said the spider to the fly.”

  168. avatar
    misha marinsky August 25, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

    charo: with potential triple citizenship

    It’s not potential – it’s actual.

    charo: makes the certificate definitely suspect

    I believe it.

  169. avatar
    charo August 25, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    gorefan: How so?

    I was being sarcastic. The whole comparison to the Obama certificate brouhaha makes no sense, even to prove a point. Why would he fake a certificate that could lead to him being disqualified as a candidate? He is even drawing attention to the whole citizenship issue. The Obama issue concerning the born in Kenya angle concerned allegedly faking a certificate to make himself eligible. In Cruz’s case, he would be faking a certificate to make himself potentially ineligible. So the whole matter is silly.

  170. avatar
    Rickey August 25, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    charo: I was being sarcastic.The whole comparison to the Obama certificate brouhaha makes no sense, even to prove a point.Why would he fake a certificate that could lead to him being disqualified as a candidate?

    I agree that it makes no sense for any candidate for President to fake his or her birth certificate.

  171. avatar
    Arthur August 25, 2013 at 8:49 pm #

    charo: Why would he fake a certificate that could lead to him being disqualified as a candidate?

    Let me put on my birther tin foil thinking cap and have a go at “why?”

    IT’S OBVIOUS THAT RAFAEL CRUZ HAS CONCOCTED A FAKE!!! The seal is just a blob of red, it’s not raised, and no official imprint can be observed. Observe how uneven and fade the certificate number is. This is obviously a clue left by the forger to let us in on his duplicity.

    Even if this purported b.c. (note, it says Certificate of Birth, and not the approved Birth Certificate!!) is authentic, you can see that there is more than a week separating his DOB and the date when his birth was registered. This means that Cruz could have easily been born in Communist Cuba (talk about Castrocare!!!) and taken to Canada. Obviously, he’s a Communist plant! He’s a Manchurian Candidate, masquerading as a conservative, simply to get the trust of sheeple so he can turn Pennsylvania Ave. into Che Guevara Blvd.

    In conclusion, this “birth certificate” is nothing more than America’s “death certificate.”
    Cruz is trying to convince America that he was born in Canada, when he was really born a red-diaper baby with a bossa nova beat!

  172. avatar
    misha marinsky August 25, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

    Arthur: he’s a Communist plant! He’s a Manchurian Candidate, masquerading as a conservative, simply to get the trust of sheeple so he can turn Pennsylvania Ave. into Che Guevara Blvd.

    We had an agreement. Thanks for spilling the beans. NOT

  173. avatar
    misha marinsky August 25, 2013 at 8:57 pm #

    Arthur: a bossa nova beat!

    Ted Cruz sings ♪ “The girl from Ipanema.” ♫

  174. avatar
    JPotter August 25, 2013 at 9:43 pm #

    Wait, wait, wait … waitaminute. No racial classifications on Cruz’s ‘certificate’. Who cares whether his parents were/n’t American … when we can’t even be sure they are even human?

    Canada’s colorblind ways undercut my desire to crack that his daddy must be referred to as ‘Caribbean’.

    Maybe Colbert is secretly Canadian.

  175. avatar
    The Magic M August 26, 2013 at 6:36 am #

    charo: Why would he fake a certificate that could lead to him being disqualified as a candidate?

    To show birthers he can get away with it?

    charo: The Obama issue concerning the born in Kenya angle concerned allegedly faking a certificate to make himself eligible. In Cruz’s case, he would be faking a certificate to make himself potentially ineligible.

    FauxBirfer: You can never fake too much (otherwise Obama could’ve faked himself an All-American Father[tm] while he was at it). And if Obama faked only his place of birth, Cruz likely faked only the citizenship of his mother. ;)

  176. avatar
    JPotter August 26, 2013 at 8:57 am #

    The Magic M: To show birthers he can get away with it?

    Yesterday, a couple of posters mentioned an exchange at ORYR between ‘FALCON’ and ‘Julio Schwarz’, on a Cruz-eligibility story posted 8/25/13. Other posters were chiming in, but F and JS were going to the mattresses. It was hilarious.

    All concerned agreed Cruz was ineligible, and knew it. After all, they noted (you can’t make this up …!), he is a Harvard-educated lawyer, he isn’t stupid. So the disagreement was over whether he is running (how would anyone know for sure…?), and, since he is running, why is he running ‘anyway’?

    My two favorite theories advanced were 1) To force the courts to acknowledge his ineligibility, which would retroactively take out Obama (because, obviously, courts are biased against “Strict Constitutionalists” and “True Conservatives” and would thus prosecute Cruz despite having given Obama a pass … and then immediately admit their ‘error’ and proactively prosecute Obama), or 2) why not, Obama got away with it.

  177. avatar
    Hektor August 26, 2013 at 10:10 am #

    JPotter: My two favorite theories advanced were 1) To force the courts to acknowledge his ineligibility, which would retroactively take out Obama (because, obviously, courts are biased against “Strict Constitutionalists” and “True Conservatives” and would thus prosecute Cruz despite having given Obama a pass … and then immediately admit their ‘error’ and proactively prosecute Obama), or 2) why not, Obama got away with it.

    Look, if Obama was the dictator birthers believe him to be, Cruz could be ineligible and under the same set of circumstances the President would be eligible. Totalitarian systems aren’t known for their rule of law. That Cruz might be eligible and Obama be eligible under a different set of circumstances completely escapes them.

    As for the second point, well, LOL. It’s not like I expected birthers to be consistent other than their hatred for the President.

  178. avatar
    gorefan August 26, 2013 at 10:55 am #

    charo: Why would he fake a certificate that could lead to him being disqualified as a candidate?

    Let me channel butterdezillion for a second;

    He wouldn’t unless he was trying to hide something else. To divert attention away from something else . Give up the birth in Canada, since that was already well known, but hide other incriminating facts.

    Do we know if in fact his mother is his biological mother?

    Have you seen any pictures of her pregnant with him? How about pictures of him, as a baby in Canada?

    BTW, here is an article about his dad problem.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2011/10/ted-cruz-background-as-son-of.html/

    This is interesting snippet:

    “He said his father began fighting against Batista’s regime when he was 14, in 1953. When the elder Cruz was 17, he was imprisoned and tortured by Batista’s government, his son said. The next year, 1957, Rafael Cruz legally went to Texas on a student visa issued by the Batista regime, Ted Cruz said.”

    So the Batista regime that tortured and imprisoned him then turned around and gave him a student visa. Right, that’s believable.

  179. avatar
    Rickey August 27, 2013 at 2:21 am #

    gorefan:

    This is interesting snippet:

    “He said his father began fighting against Batista’s regime when he was 14, in 1953. When the elder Cruz was 17, he was imprisoned and tortured by Batista’s government, his son said. The next year, 1957, Rafael Cruz legally went to Texas on a student visa issued by the Batista regime, Ted Cruz said.”

    So the Batista regime that tortured and imprisoned him then turned around and gave him a student visa.Right, that’s believable.

    It also is interesting because there really was only armed skirmish between the rebels and the Batista government between 1953 and the end of 1956. The rebels made an unsuccessful attack against the Moncada Barracks in July, 1953. The rebels were routed and virtually all of them were captured within a few days. The Castro brothers were tried and sent to prison, only to be released and exiled to Mexico in 1955.

    The Castros didn’t return to Cuba until December, 1956. The guerilla fighting didn’t commence until the spring of 1957, the same year Rafael Cruz emigrated to the U.S. If he ever did any fighting for Castro, it couldn’t have amounted to much. And he certainly didn’t leave Cuba because of Castro, who didn’t take control of Cuba until January, 1959. It would be interesting to learn exactly when Rafael Cruz arrived in the United States. The reports which I have seen are very vague on that point.

  180. avatar
    Jim August 27, 2013 at 11:58 am #

    http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/08/27/senator_ted_cruzs_calgary_connections_come_home_to_roost_steward.html

    From someone who knew the Cruz’ in Canada

    “But then again if you were born in Canada but you want to be president of the United States it’s important to shuck that left-wing taint.

    And you certainly wouldn’t want anyone to know that you actually benefitted from all that socialism.”

  181. avatar
    misha marinsky August 27, 2013 at 12:35 pm #

    Jim: And you certainly wouldn’t want anyone to know that you actually benefitted from all that socialism.”

    Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care

    Sarah Palin — who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care — admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada’s single-payer system.

    “We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,” Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. “And I think now, isn’t that ironic?”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html