Main Menu

Birthers for Cruz!

The Opposing Views web site carries a new article today about WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah, his birther opposition to Barack Obama and his support for foreign-born potential presidential contender Ted Cruz. The article also cites support for Cruz from birther-friendly congressman Steve Stockman.

Both seem to like Cruz’ birth certificate more than Obama’s, even though the latter is the only one with a paper trail and official confirmation. Could the problem with Obama’s certificate be that word “African” on it—I mean as a fact, not an anomaly.

,

18 Responses to Birthers for Cruz!

  1. avatar
    sfjeff January 17, 2014 at 2:49 pm #

    “I don’t care because the Constitution was not written and ratified to be applied to some and not others. If no one cared about Obama’s questionable eligibility, despite his shocking lack of transparency and thin paper trail, then they have no business questioning Ted Cruz – who has released his birth certificate, renounced his Canadian citizenship and upheld every provision of the Constitution to the best of his ability throughout his life.”

    I love the transparent hypocrisy of Farah.

    Among the many things that are whacky in that statement is that as far as I know Cruz has still not actually and legally renounced his Canadian citizenship though he sure has talked about doing it.

  2. avatar
    bob January 17, 2014 at 3:07 pm #

    Among the many things that are whacky in that statement is that as far as I know Cruz has still not actually and legally renounced his Canadian citizenship though he sure has talked about doing it.

    An article that Farah cited as “proof” of the media’s bias notes Cruz’s renunciation is taking longer than it should for a simple process.

    See: the media are birthers because they note Cruz hasn’t kept his word!

  3. avatar
    sfjeff January 17, 2014 at 4:38 pm #

    And Farah- always willing to be fair and balanced provides this insite

    Joseph Farah Follow Works at WND 416 subscribers
    Actually, I have NEVER claimed Obama was not born in the United States. Since I have written tens of thousands of word on the subject of his possible ineligibility, please prove me wrong.

    Ah what a weasel

    Here is one example of how Farah never actually claimed Obama was born outside the U.S.

    This is important constitutionally beyond proving mere citizenship. The Constitution requires presidents to be “natural born” Americans – meaning born within the United States. In Hawaii circa 1961, it was possible – even routine – to register foreign births.

    If, as some evidence strongly suggests, including the testimony of two Obama relatives to WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi who say they were present when he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961, he was born abroad and merely registered in Hawaii, that would slam-dunk disqualify him from serving – unless, like John McCain, both his parents were U.S. citizens. Since Obama’s autobiography also states that his mother was a minor and his father a citizen of Kenya, only the production of actual hospital records on a long-form birth certificate can provide the necessary information.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/81964/#GyToS3UOIZQ6hLAQ.99

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm #

    sfjeff: This is important constitutionally beyond proving mere citizenship. The Constitution requires presidents to be “natural born” Americans – meaning born within the United States. In Hawaii circa 1961, it was possible – even routine – to register foreign births.

    If, as some evidence strongly suggests, including the testimony of two Obama relatives to WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi who say they were present when he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961, he was born abroad and merely registered in Hawaii, that would slam-dunk disqualify him from serving – unless, like John McCain, both his parents were U.S. citizens. Since Obama’s autobiography also states that his mother was a minor and his father a citizen of Kenya, only the production of actual hospital records on a long-form birth certificate can provide the necessary information.

    Two big lies there:

    The law in 1961 only allowed for births in Hawaii, and no birther has ever come up with an exception to this law.

    In the second case, Corsi did interview an Obama relative, and wrote about it in his book, The Obama Nation (pp. 24-25) , the relative, Obama’s uncle Sayid, said that the first time the President was in Kenya was in 1986.

  5. avatar
    Daniel January 17, 2014 at 6:04 pm #

    Farrah never actually “states” anything. He knows he runs a propaganda rag that always treads the razors edge on outright libel.

    He rage mines by leading his sheep to a conclusion based on headlines that are really nothing more than dogmatic statements, with a question mark on the end to limit liability.

    If he ever does get to the point where a statement is required he makes sure it’s one of his disposable columnists who actually make it.

    One thing you can say about him. He’s good at weaselling. Very good.

  6. avatar
    Paper January 17, 2014 at 9:54 pm #

    Aha! Reading this opinion closely, we realize what this whole conspiracy has been about! No wonder the powers-that-be never “truly” questioned the President’s bonafides! No wonder all the judges have been commandeered!

    Right–if President Obama can get away with it, then anyone can!!

    We know the New World Order has been eager to get Schwarzenegger into the presidency. Now they can do it!!!!!!!!!

    Enough exclamation points to get the point across?

    It’s all been one big double-fake-out. And it took someone like Farah to reveal the truth. I have to go apologize to the birthers I know. I just didn’t understand…

    sfjeff:
    “I don’t care because the Constitution was not written and ratified to be applied to some and not others. If no one cared about Obama’s questionable eligibility, despite his shocking lack of transparency and thin paper trail, then they have no business questioning Ted Cruz – who has released his birth certificate, renounced his Canadian citizenship and upheld every provision of the Constitution to the best of his ability throughout his life.”

    I love the transparent hypocrisy of Farah.

    Among the many things that are whacky in that statement is that as far as I know Cruz has still not actually and legally renounced his Canadian citizenship though he sure has talked about doing it.

  7. avatar
    Lupin January 18, 2014 at 3:36 am #

    Many moons ago I challenged birthers here (including the Meretricious One) to show that they cared deeply enough about their beloved constitutional issues BEFORE Obama’s election by linking to any posts or articles they might have written anywhere prior to said election.

    Crickets.

    There may be a few exceptions but IMHO the majority of birthers are liars when they express concern about the constitution, marxism, etc. What truly matters is that a n*** sits in the White House — and one who belongs to the rival tribe. That’s it.

  8. avatar
    elmo January 18, 2014 at 8:16 am #

    The birth certificate released by Ted Cruz proves only that he is a citizen of Canada. In order for him to prove that he is also a citizen of the United States, he would need to release other documents, because in order for him to be a citizen at birth courtesy of his mother’s citizenship, his mother must have met certain residency requirements. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad would establish Cruz’ American citizenship:

    http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

    However, I wonder if the Cruz family did not get one at the time?

  9. avatar
    Rickey January 18, 2014 at 7:32 pm #

    Lupin:

    There may be a few exceptions but IMHO the majority of birthers are liars when they express concern about the constitution, marxism, etc. What truly matters is that a n*** sits in the White House — and one who belongs to the rival tribe. That’s it.

    One of the biggest lies was when many of them claimed that they were taught in school that a natural-born citizen has to have two citizen parents at birth. When challenged to produce a single civics text, history text, legal text, or even a syllabus which contains the “two-citizen parent requirement” they became totally unresponsive and began deleting the challenges.

  10. avatar
    Kate January 18, 2014 at 10:08 pm #

    elmo:
    The birth certificate released by Ted Cruz proves only that he is a citizen of Canada. In order for him to prove that he is also a citizen of the United States, he would need to release other documents, because in order for him to be a citizen at birth courtesy of his mother’s citizenship, his mother must have met certain residency requirements. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad would establish Cruz’ American citizenship:

    http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

    However, I wonder if the Cruz family did not get one at the time?

    I can’t help but wonder if this is why we haven’t read that he has actually renounced his Canadian citizenship. It’s possible that his parents did not get the required CRBA prior to returning to the U.S. If he wanted to prove his U.S. citizenship, why didn’t he show his CRBA rather than his birth certificate which proves otherwise? What do we hear from birthers about the discrepancy? Either it’s “crickets” or they try to blame it on the amount of paperwork that’s involved in renouncing citizenship although a Canadian official has already come forward and claimed it is quite a simple process that only takes a few moments. However, Cruz can’t renounce his citizenship in Canada if he didn’t claim U.S. birth at the time or he’d simply be a man without a country…except for that pesky Cuban citizenship that I believe he still retains.

    Birthers, being the hypocrites they are, won’t bother to speculate on whether or not Cruz’s parents obtained the required paperwork at the time of his birth. That would reduce Cruz to the same level as President Obama.

  11. avatar
    Dave B. January 18, 2014 at 11:16 pm #

    Nobody ever had to get a CRBA to be a US citizen, or even to establish proof of US citizenship. It’s just one way of establishing proof of citizenship, and by far the best course to take for a person who acquires US citizenship at birth outside the US; but it’s not required. A CRBA can be acquired at any time up to age 18; a Certificate of Citizenship can be acquired at any time, as can a US passport. A Certificate of Citizenship never expires, but a passport is valid for any US citizen entering the US. A CRBA is a valid entry document only for children entering the US by land or sea (Customs and Border Protection doesn’t list a Certificate of Citizenship as a valid entry document).
    Senator Cruz doesn’t have to prove to the Canadian government that he was born a US citizen in order to renounce his Canadian citizenship. The Canadian government doesn’t give a hoot if he was a US citizen on December 22, 1970; what he has to prove is that he will be a citizen of a country other than Canada at the time of renunciation. A US passport would be perfectly satisfactory for that.
    Right now the Canadian government estimates the processing time for a routine renunciation, from receipt of application to final decision, to be 4 months.
    http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce-after.asp
    http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/canada/cit-renunciation.asp

    elmo:
    The birth certificate released by Ted Cruz proves only that he is a citizen of Canada. In order for him to prove that he is also a citizen of the United States, he would need to release other documents, because in order for him to be a citizen at birth courtesy of his mother’s citizenship, his mother must have met certain residency requirements. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad would establish Cruz’ American citizenship:

    http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

    However, I wonder if the Cruz family did not get one at the time?

    Kate: If he wanted to prove his U.S. citizenship, why didn’t he show his CRBA rather than his birth certificate which proves otherwise? What do we hear from birthers about the discrepancy? Either it’s “crickets” or they try to blame it on the amount of paperwork that’s involved in renouncing citizenship although a Canadian official has already come forward and claimed it is quite a simple process that only takes a few moments.

  12. avatar
    Lupin January 19, 2014 at 1:54 am #

    Rickey: One of the biggest lies was when many of them claimed that they were taught in school that a natural-born citizen has to have two citizen parents at birth. When challenged to produce a single civics text, history text, legal text, or even a syllabus which contains the “two-citizen parent requirement” they became totally unresponsive and began deleting the challenges.

    And as I said, they were never abler to prove they cared about Vattel or whatever BEFORE Obama.

  13. avatar
    JPotter January 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm #

    Rickey: One of the biggest lies was when many of them claimed that they were taught in school that a natural-born citizen has to have two citizen parents at birth.

    For kicks, I assembled a collection of civics/gov’t/history texts, from the 1870s – 1950s, 11 books in all, and start going through them and taking notes on anything relating to citizenship and Presidential eligibility, in particular the natural born citizen clause. I offered to write an article for Doc on the findings.

    After dipping my toes in, I quickly started adding notes on race, as the vintage commentary on demographics is pretty shocking. Especially the books from the ’20s (the postwar Klan-revival period!). They’re very … “Song of the South”. They taught this stuff to kids? It was before school integration … and lo and behold, indoctrination of stereotypes right there in print.

    That aside, there was doodly-squat of interest on the NBC issue. These are books for schoolkids, they simply ripple off the simple requirements from the Constitution, sometimes paraphrase, sometimes verbatim, usually with no commentary at all.

    I took this to mean that the meaning of NBC, at least in a general context, has continued to be self-evident—at least for the purposes of textbooks!—for a really long time.

    Even books pre-WKA, even pre-Minor, didn’t mention unsettled questions. Why would they? Why would primary school kids in the 19th century, or even high school kids in the 20th century, be wondering off into the fine points of citizenship law and Constitutional esoterica?

    Anyway, the project died for lack of substance. The initial sample provided no encouragement to dig deeper. The books themselves are fascinating time capsules, but there’s just nothing there specifically for or against FauxVattelian Birfer memes. Can’t prove a negative.

    And, besides, I simply hadn’t found the “right” textbooks, right? :P

  14. avatar
    sfjeff January 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

    JPotter: For kicks, I assembled a collection of civics/gov’t/history texts, from the 1870s – 1950s, 11 books in all, and start going through them and taking notes on anything relating to citizenship and Presidential eligibility, in particular the natural born citizen clause. I offered to write an article for Doc on the findings.

    After dipping my toes in, I quickly started adding notes on race, as the vintage commentary on demographics is pretty shocking. Especially the books from the ’20s (the postwar Klan-revival period!). They’re very … “Song of the South”. They taught this stuff to kids? It was before school integration … and lo and behold, indoctrination of stereotypes right there in print.

    That aside, there was doodly-squat of interest on the NBC issue. These are books for schoolkids, they simply ripple off the simple requirements from the Constitution, sometimes paraphrase, sometimes verbatim, usually with no commentary at all.

    I took this to mean that the meaning of NBC, at least in a general context, has continued to be self-evident—at least for the purposes of textbooks!—for a really long time.

    Even books pre-WKA, even pre-Minor, didn’t mention unsettled questions. Why would they? Why would primary school kids in the 19th century, or even high school kids in the 20th century, be wondering off into the fine points of citizenship law and Constitutional esoterica?

    Anyway, the project died for lack of substance. The initial sample provided no encouragement to dig deeper. The books themselves are fascinating time capsules, but there’s just nothing there specifically for or against FauxVattelian Birfer memes. Can’t prove a negative.

    And, besides, I simply hadn’t found the “right” textbooks, right?

    One of the reasons that argument offends me is because I can still remember that one thing being taught to me by my junior high civic teacher- a very and openly conservative guy- and I remember us talking about who could be elected President.

    And the message we all learned was that anyone born in the U.S. could aspire to be elected President. It was the essential promise of America- no matter who your parents were, no matter what your ‘class’ or ‘status’ or education- that if you are born here you were just as equal as anyone else born here when it comes to being eligible to be President.

    And that is why I get so offended by the idiots who embrace this new definition just so that they can pretend that the son of an African could not be Presdient.

  15. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2014 at 4:44 pm #

    JPotter:

    Anyway, the project died for lack of substance. The initial sample provided no encouragement to dig deeper. The books themselves are fascinating time capsules, but there’s just nothing there specifically for or against FauxVattelian Birfer memes. Can’t prove a negative.

    And, besides, I simply hadn’t found the “right” textbooks, right?

    I’ve mentioned this before, but I have a home schooling textbook from 1985 by right-wing author W. Cleon Skousen which says that the natural-born citizen requirement guaranteed that “only a native-born citizen” could become President.

    I remember posting this info on a birther website a few years ago and I was immediately banned.

  16. avatar
    JPotter January 19, 2014 at 6:07 pm #

    sfjeff: And the message we all learned was that anyone born in the U.S. could aspire to be elected President.

    Exactly! And I was certain that at least some of the textbooks would express that sentiment, that would have been the article’s payoff. But none did :(

    I also suspect, that, at the time, the idea of a non-WASP President—which has been ever-present in adult conversation—was just too racy for school textbooks. They did have to make it past school boards.

  17. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 19, 2014 at 9:30 pm #

    That’s just it, SF… yes, they said “anyone could be President,” but they meant “even white men born to a good, if not wealthy or connected, family.”

    But there’s hope. Look at what happened to “…all men are created equal.”

  18. avatar
    Rickey January 20, 2014 at 11:00 pm #

    Now that I’ve been able to put my hands on it, the book I was referring to is “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution” by W. Cleon Skousen, published by the right-wing National Center for Constitutional Studies in 1985. Referring to the natural-born citizen requirement, he writes “This provision gave the American people the RIGHT to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens,” (capitalization in the original – Skousen loved to capitalize that word) p. 720.