Ted Cruz killed it today taking Obama to task for his decision to arm the Syrian “rebels”
[youtube]http://youtu.be/Aag7XL2e1Ww[/youtube]
He makes two observations to Obama:
“Number one, don’t arm al Qaida. Don’t arm those who hate us. Don’t arm those who want to kill us. Number two, when it comes to matters of vital national security, the President of the United States needs to come to the American people. It is not acceptable for the president to simply send out staffers to pass on his decisions. He needs to come before Congress and the American people and explain those decisions.”
By arming the “rebels” most assuredly he will be arming al-Qaeda. 7 of the 9 “rebel” groups are radical Islamists:
And one of those supposed non-radical groups is dedicated to fighting only in the Kurdish areas.
So he somehow believes these weapons aren’t going to get in the hands of al-Qaeda?
Give me a friggin break.
What should our priority be?
The President would be better off focusing clearly on the one thing that is in our national security interests: securing Syria’s large stockpile of chemical weapons…We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.
Now that’s talking like the President of the United States rather than a “citizen of the world” as Obama said yesterday.
We didn’t elect him to be a damn “citizen of the world”! We elected him to be our Commander in Chief, the President of this country. Instead he is intervening in wars half-heartedly, leaving a huge power vacuum behind in each country which is promptly filled by radical Islamists.
It’s a disgrace.
Ted Cruz has some simple questions:
- Why aiding the Syrian rebels is now worth our intervention when it wasn’t two years ago.
- How he has established which rebels are the appropriate recipients of this support and how this very limited support will make a material difference in Syria.
- How his team is proactively planning to keep Syria’s chemical weapons out of the hands of either Hezbollah or al Qaida.
Will he answer? Can he?
I doubt it.
See author page
You’re so right, Curt. Obama is clearly not looking out for the interests of the American citizens. When you are sending arms to people that are pledged to kill you, you shouldn’t be surprised if they use them to kill you. These 4 years can’t get over soon enough.
Tweets by tedcruz
Cruz’s Tweets are KILLERS!
One:
Another:
Whose son will be the first to die with anAmerican weapon in the hands of a Jihadist homicidal maniac? An American weapon supplied by our president.
There have been lots of casualties resulting from American weapons that were turned on our troops, but up until now, we have never had a president supply weapons to the enemy, weapons that will eventually be used against Americans.
I guess the majority of our RINOs are overjoyed at the prospect of arming our enemies to convince them of our good intentions. Thank God we have a Conservative in DC. Rubio is our biggest phony.
The left will always tell you who they fear, and you can bet, they fear Ted Cruz. Today, Daily Kos ran this headline:
Sen. Ted Cruz’s immigrant dad was crooked law-breaker, which is almost as bad as being a senator
And how did DailyKos come to this conclusion? Well from an article on NPR.org (a radical left wing organization that we taxpayers pay for) that contained this:
“In an interview near his home outside Dallas, the elder Cruz says that as a teenager, he fought alongside Fidel Castro’s forces to overthrow Cuba’s U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista. He was caught by Batista’s forces, he says, and jailed and beaten before being released. It was 1957, and Cruz decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas. Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.
“Then the only other thing that I needed was an exit permit from the Batista government,” Cruz recalls. “A friend of the family, a lawyer friend of my father, basically bribed a Batista official to stamp my passport with an exit permit.”
So, you got that? Rafael Cruz is a “crooked law-breaker” because, unlike what DailyKos represents, Mr. Cruz did not bribe a Bautista official, a friend of Senator Cruz’ grandfather did. Rafael Cruz realized in 1957, at age 18, that he needed to get out of Fidel Castro’s Cuba, along with hundreds of thousands of other Cubans who understood what was going down while our lying, duplicitous media was telling us what a great man Fidel Castro was and who still pay homage to the Communist dictator even today.
So DailyKos lays the crime at Rafael Cruz’ feet, instead of the feet of a friend of Rafael’s father. How convenient. Is there any proof that Rafael Cruz, barely 18 years of age, even knew his father’s friend was offering up bribes to secure his exit visa? Hell, no, but that doesn’t stop the lying left. Even the lying HuffingtonPost picked up the story, spinning it like an expensive top. But I can promise those idiots at DailyKos, HuffingtonPost and even NPR, that thousands of Cubans were bribing not only Bautista’s officials, but Castro’s, as well.
The left fears this man; he is smart (makes Obama look like a kindergartner), he is articulate without a teleprompter, he is accomplished, Allen Dershowitz says that Ted Cruz was the smartest student he ever taught and James Carville called Cruz “Reaganesque.” While Obama was teaching impressionable students about Saul Alinsky, at the same age, Ted Cruz was clerking for a SOTUS justice and going on to argue before the Supreme Court.
Yeah, they’re gonna go after Rafael Cruz. It’s what they do. Remind me again how the left wing wrote unflattering articles about how Obama’s father was a drunk Communist who spread his seed across two continents and abandoned every child he had and how Obama must be awful because his father was such a loser.
Allow me to clarify.
Ted Cruz just said that we need to work up a plan to invade Syria.
Which, as I recall, is presently being armed by Russia, and is to be supplied with ground troops by Iran.
Because—using anti-Assad forces as a proxy in an effort to control the course of events is just too damn risky?
@retire05: If Cruz Sr. left in 57 he was leaving Batista regime not Castro who overthrew Batista in 59.
You say Cruz fought with Castro around 56-57 so he most likely admired Castro. Many did in the early years of the Revolution.
I find Greg’s #5 of greater interest.
Semper Fi
@retire05: Please do not insult “kindergartners”
Maybe he wants THEM to win.
Sometimes doing nothing, or very little, is an answer. You just have to figure out what the non-answer means.
During World War II, we were selling arms to Germany and Japan. I have often wondered how many of our guys died by our own arms.
That certainly would explain what he did regarding Egypt and Libya.
@Richard Wheeler:
I understand that, Richard, but in the fall of ’57, when Rafael left, Castro was gaining much power, Batista was losing power, all because our own press refused to acknowledge that Russia was aiding Castro. Hell, man, Che’, the butcher, is still canonized by some here in our country. But Cubans knew. They knew, even though Castro denied it, that Castro was nothing more than another run of the mill Communist.
Who did you admire when you were 16-17? We have teenagers now that admire NFL players who are nothing more than foul mouthed druggies.
Of course you would.
@Greg: Allow me to clarify. You’ve just used a rhetorical device to muddy the discussion rather than engage it:
“Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.”
You desire to use the word “invade” because of the anti-Republican hate generated by the Iraqi invasion. You want to foment fear in the institutionalized way we’ve had to suffer for the past 15 years or so. Cruz did not use or imply the word “invade”. If we are to use your flimsy logic, then I would call the Bin Laden assassination an “invasion” as well: we sent troops into a sovereign nation and had our will be done. So you couldn’t possibly be against sending troops into Syria for any reason . . . just kidding, but you see the logical fallacy.
You’ve also not addressed Cruz’s concerns about arming groups that consider us an enemy. Care to engage the conversation, instead of offering “clarification” (anything but)?
@Greg: And I will add that this is how it starts. Cruz comes from the stock of criminal communists (and you Reps say you hate Commies!), or perhaps he wants to invade another country . . . hint, hint . . . just like Bush.
Cruz is Bush. People were taught to hate Bush.
Hate Cruz. Don’t listen to what he is saying.
Googled “Ted Cruz” in the News.
The following media smear campaign came up:
Ted Cruz’s errant tweet that employers would have a ‘huge incentive …
Washington Post (blog)-4 hours ago
HUGE incentive for employers to hire them instead of Americans. — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) June 19, 2013. “If Gang of 8 bill passes, …
Ted Cruz slams Gang of Eight ‘bragging’
Politico-8 hours ago
Sen. Ted Cruz blasted the headlong push to pass an immigration bill, telling a tea party rally Wednesday that he’s upset with Democrats trying …
How Ted Cruz’s Father Shaped His Views On Immigration
NPR-Jun 20, 2013
The views of that freshman senator — Texas Republican Ted Cruz — have been significantly colored by the saga of his own father, …
+
Show more
Politico
Ted Cruz: Oppose immigration reform in name of `our humanity’
Washington Post (blog)-Jun 19, 2013
The trouble is that in the wake of the CBO news their case looks ever more absurd and desperate. Case in point: Ted Cruz, on the Senate floor …
+
Show more
U.S. News & World Report
Did Ted Cruz Just Call for Military Action in Syria?
National Review Online (blog)-by Charles C. W. Cooke-18 hours ago
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today spoke on the Senate floor to voice his concern about U.S. plans to supply arms to Syrian rebel groups.
+
Show more
He’s Latino, questioning the use of arms in the world stage, and standing up for American rights . . .
Oh, but he’s a Republican. Well then, we’ll just let the media do there job of denigrating all those who disagree with our new, increasingly totalitarian regime.
Any video of him with a water bottle?
Oh yeah, that’s the other Latino . . .
@retire05: @retire05: Let’s be clear.At age 18, after fighting with Castro and being jailed and beaten by Batista, he immigrated to U.S on a student visa to attend U.T. Good for him—HOOK EM HORNS. Later married and moved to Canada where Jr. was born in 1960.
Jr. says “Develop a plan to go into Syria ,secure or destroy the large stockpile of chemical weapons Assad has deployed, and then get out.” Nothing to it.
@Richard Wheeler:
And your point is? A lot of Cubans believed, at first, that Fidel’s goals were honorable. They learned differently. By the fall of ’57, many Cubans were beginning to wake up to Fidel’s true agenda. What is apparent is that you have no criticism for the left wing, such as DK and HP, that are trying to slander Senator Cruz’ father with false headlines. Should we also criticize those who bribed East Berlin officials to escape Communist Germany? What about the Jews that bribed Nazi officials to be able to flee Nazi Germany? Should we call them
all a “crooked law-breaker?” Or is that only reserved for those who came here and became conservatives?
P.S. Ted Cruz is NOT a Jr. So either you were trying to be too cute by half, or you wanted to be insulting. Which was it?
@Redteam:
In fairness, I don’t think he has ever said he’d put American interests first. In that regard, he is truly “transparent”.
@retire05: as to the Jr., RW was quoting Daily Kos’ers.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1217543/50493006#c14
Excellent points about others fleeing other regimes throughout the 30’s 40’s and 50’s, retor05.
I had been raised by parents whose parents fled Russia as the commies were setting up shop.
I met plenty of people who fled Europe ahead of Hitler’s expansion.
Bribery and even disguising boy children as girls were common.
Yet some of the sons and daughters in the USA have risen to become mayors, state officials, federal officials, even at top levels.
Character assassination is clearly all the Left has against Ted Cruz.
Going against his FACTS is too hard for them.
@Nan G: Ret.05 correction Cruz born 1970–How bout Jr. Senator from Tex.? lol
I’m no fan of D.K. and think they are wrong in portraying any criminal activity by Sr.
Fact is Sr. did not leave Cuba because of Castro—-neither did Rubio’s parents as Marco originally claimed.
@Richard Wheeler:
Since you seem to privy to the reasons Rafael Cruz left Cuba, stating, unequivocally, it was not because of Castro, perhaps you would like to share with us why he left? Certainly, you must have discussed this with Rafael Cruz, to be so certain as to what his reasons were not?
So don’t keep us out of the loop. Tell us what Mr. Cruz, himself, told you.
@retire05: Pretty obvious the Cuban teenager left on a student visa to attend U.T. Having been recently jailed by the Batista Govt. for fighting on the side of Castro’s rebels surely weighed in on this intelligent decision.
BTW I’d be interested in knowing if you agree with Redteam and others here who suggest “natural born citizen clause” makes Marco Rubio ineligible for Presidency. His parents became U.S. citizens in 1975. He was born in Fla. in 1971.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler: RW, you do know that a natural born citizen is one that is born of two American citizen parents, don’t you?
@Redteam: That has clearly been your reading of the clause.
You do know many disagree,don’t you?
@Richard Wheeler:
To who? You? So you are just ASSuming you know the reason for his leaving Cuba? You have never talked to Rafael Cruz, don’t know why he applied to a university in the states, don’t know why he didn’t want to attend a University in Cuba, nothing. You just make assumptions you have no basis for.
Tell me, Richard, by the fall of 1957, how many Cubans who hated Batista, knew that Fidel Castro, and his assassin, Che Guevera, were not what they claimed to be? How many Cubans were trying to flee Cuba by then?
I can tell you this; I remember how the American press fawned over Fidel. How he was made into a hero and how he was going to release his people from the clutches of the evil dictator, Batista. Americans were sold a bill of goods about a man that was being propped up by the Russians, just as the man you helped put into the Oval Office is now trying to sell us a bill of goods about the Middle East. Cubans knew better.
So don’t make statements of fact about the reasons people do things, like Rafael Cruz, unless you know for certain what those facts are. Get back to us after you talk to him.
@retire05: It just so happens that I was in Cuba at the time Fidel took over and I agree that the press were idolizing him (a la Obama now). They thought he was the Savior come back to lead the world. Didn’t take too long for them to find out the truth.
@Richard Wheeler: I can’t correct them all, RW. Some people learn faster than others.
@retire05: You really are a consistent hater of the American Press–blame them for a hell of a lot. I say “thank God for the First Amendment.” and our free press.
Cruz got a student visa in 57 after having been jailed by Batista for fighting with Castro. You gotta really stretch to think he left country to escape Castro. But hey.
I ask again your thoughts on Marco’s POTUS eligibility. Redteam weighed in quickly.Thanks
@Nathan Blue, #11:
Perhaps, then, someone will be kind enough to explain to me how we would “go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out” without an actual invasion being involved. Maybe the entire operation could be conducted under the guise of a Tupperware party.
I believe Mr. Cruz is the one who isn’t actually stating what he means. It might be even worse than that. Mr. Cruz may not actually know what he means.
It doesn’t take that much imagination to guess what would likely happen if the U.S. were to go into Syria to locate and secure or destroy Syrian weapons stockpiles. The entire Middle East could explode. Iran might cross its border into Iraq. We could suddenly find ourselves in a Mexican standoff with Russia. Nuclear-armed Israel would likely be pulled in.
Why do people think the Obama administration has been handling the entire Syrian situation as if it were a bottle of sun-warmed nitroglycerin? The reason is because that’s pretty much what the situation is. So here comes Mr. Cruz, wagging his finger in the air with a presidential gleam in his eye, charging into the discussion like a bull in a china shop. That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about Ted Cruz.
I haven’t carried Cruz’s proposition beyond it’s natural limits. All I did was listen to him, and think about the real world implications of what he said.
@Richard Wheeler:
Y
When the press think that their idols should be Walter Duranty, Walter Lippmann and Walter Cronkite, what is there not to hate?
You should be praying for an honest press, Richard, something that we no longer have, for the most part. And if you think this administration going after journalists, like Rosen, and the AP journalists, will keep that press free, you are fooling yourself.
No, Richard, it is you who is stretching thinking you know his reason[s] for leaving Cuba when you have never discussed the issue with him. Everything you claim is purely hypothetical. I suggest you contact Mr. Cruz and ask him, point blank, not only why he left Cuba, but why he did not return. After all, he would have been one of the escopeteros, right?
There were those who fled Cuba because they were supporters of Castro and feared retaliation by Batista. There were those who fled because they did not support Castro and his band of merry Communists, and there were those who fled because they were not on either side but knew that the revolution was not going to work out well. For every person who fled Cuba, there was another reason. You have nothing to base you assumptions of Rafael Cruz’ reason on but your personal opinion which is not based on anything Mr. Cruz has ever said.
@retire05: Cruz said he left Cuba to go to college. ANYTHING else is supposition. nuf said. 3RD and final request for your thoughts on POTUS eligibility of Rubio? How bout eligibility of Cruz? Thanks
Floor is open to any other commentary on the eligibility of these gentlemen.
Greg “Mr Cruz waging his finger in the air with a presidential gleam in his eyes.” There it is.
Let the games of 2016 begin.
@John: #9
It would also explain why he is doing some of the other things he is doing and the things he is not doing.
@Greg:
P
Read what Senator Cruz said, Greggie. Not what you think he said. He did not say ” we would “go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out.” He did say ” The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.” Remember Libya, Greggie? Remember Egypt? Or do you think that leading from behind is the answer? And who do you think Senator Cruz was saying we should lead? Who was Obama leading from behind with Libya and Egypt?
Because, in spite of all the whining Obama has done about the people being killed in Syria, there are NO good sides there. The best thing to do in Syria is NOTHING. Let the Islamists kill each other. Let the Sunnis kill the Shites, and vise versa. Because sooner or later, Greggie, they will cease fighting each other and come after us.
@Greg: I would disagree — the terms used are in an effort to color and discredit Cruz, using a pre-bottled culture toxin developed during the Bush years. Invasion means something different than what Cruz said, and you know it.
But on to my own opinion about the whole thing in Syria:
I believe the US somehow incited or allowed for the Arab Spring to happen, for reasons our admin finds favorable. Obama’s only been reluctant to arm the rebels for one reason: Russia.
As bad as it looks when you let your own people die in order to prevent a helicopter of soldiers from being shot down by US-supplied stinger missiles, it would really tarnish Obama’s false reputation as a “peace-maker” when Russians end up dead by the same missiles.
I prefer the open and honest approach: we either do war — publicly — or we don’t. Clinton and Obama have waged war as much as any president, but it’s all hidden and made to look like “responses” and “aid” and “peacekeeping.” Under Bush, the US went to war using all the right protocols and permissions. Everyone signed off on it, and when public backlash hit (stirred up by the media and hollywood), they cited the “intelligence” farce as their defense, hoping not to loose their House/Senate seat. Pathetic. And the Dems, being the weaker party, had no choice but to become enslaved by pop-culture mob rule. They can’t do anything without smoke, mirrors, and glitter. It’s going to sink them in the end.
Returning to point:
Arming rebels is cowardly, and just plain wrong. If you are going to meddle with a country’s right to govern itself or have a civil war, don’t act self-righteous about it and hide behind doing anything except putting your cards on the table. We are an empire and we meddle. Reps do it openly, Dems do it clandestinely. Cruz is open and honest about what he wants, and he’s criticized Obama for the admin’s oscillating stance. Incompetence is often passed off as prudence by the White House, but please . . .
My own take? We shouldn’t be arming anyone. We shouldn’t be installing and removing leaders, playing pattycake with any nation, in any way. We should pick a stance of defense for the US, and aid (food, medical, social) for all war torn regions, everywhere, giving what we can. But it’s too late for that. We are now fully in the die we’ve caste for ourselves and the world. There will be blood.
@Richard Wheeler:
Has he ever said that was the ONLY reason he left Cuba?
If I go by the original argument of what constitutes a “natural” born citizen, Rubio and Cruz are no more eligible than Obama was. But that horse long ago left the gate, and Rubio and Cruz are just as eligible as Obama is. And if you lefties want to have that fight, that Cruz and Rubio are not eligible, bring it on. Wouldn’t it be ironic to find out that everything Obama has done while in office was null and void due to his ineligibility to be POTUS?
@retire05: I believe Cruz and Rubio are eligible. It’s birthers and “constitutionalists” like Redteam that believe they are not. Blowback will come from YOUR side of the aisle. Can’t wait for that.lol
@retire05: #23
That has never stopped a liberal before, and won’t stop them in the future. Why is it when a liberal ASSUMES something, it AUTOMATICALLY becomes fact, but when a conservative ASSUMES something, it is speculation?
@Smorgasbord: Smorg Seems to me it’s the right that is “assuming”, and in the case of some, outright stating he left Cuba to escape Castro(Communism).
Your thoughts on POTUS eligibility of Cruz and Rubio. Thanks
@Nathan Blue, #32:
Maybe it’s just that our definitions differ. I think of an invasion this way: If a military force enters someone else’s sovereign territory uninvited to achieve an external power’s objectives by force of arms, an invasion has occurred. We invaded Pakistan, for example, to get Osama bin Laden. (Sorry about that, Pakistan. We won’t do it again.)
The difference between that and a full-scale invasion is only a matter of degrees. An occupation is something else besides. We invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War. We invaded and occupied Iraq during the second.
I prefer the open and honest approach: we either do war — publicly — or we don’t.
If only the world were that simple. I’m glad we never went to war with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, there was an epic struggle that lasted for decades, and we ultimately prevailed. I don’t like the civilian deaths that have resulted from the drone campaign. Unfortunately, the consequences of letting the intended targets go about their business could ultimately be much worse. I don’t like the extent of the domestic surveillance program. I also understand why it’s presently necessary.
I think how some people feel about Obama colors their view of things to far too great an extent.
@Richard Wheeler: #26
You are so proud of today’s free press because they print and broadcast the things you like to read and hear. I guess when you use the term, “free press”, to you it means the press is free to say whatever they want, whether it is true or not.
WHY LIBERALS LOVE THE PROPAGANDA MEDIA
(1) It calls the USA a democracy, even though it is a republic. This way you are reminded of democrats instead of republicans.
(2) If a republican is charged with a crime or ethics violation, they let you know at the beginning of the story that they are a republican, but if a democrat is charged, they don’t mention this, or it is at the end of the story.
(3) They are not afraid to make up stories. Remember the George Bush military papers?
(4) They don’t cover stories they don’t want us to know about unless they have to because Fox News or the conservative radio shows and bloggers have brought the story to the public’s attention. Who reported on these stories first?
Benghazi
Fast And Furious
NSA monitoring calls, emails, etc.
The democrats not submitting a budget since obama was elected, even though federal law says they have to.
Obama not having an American birth certificate, Social Security card, or Selective Service registration card.
I can see why liberals worship today’s propaganda media. It seems to be their new god. They believe EVERYTHING their god tells them, and will do whatever their god tells them to do, even if it is destroying their own country. It seems I have heard about this happening in other countries. Which ones were they?
@Greg:
Perhaps, but not on the level of Bush — it’s still a mime that’s being exploited to the detriment of all. Obama’s earned most of his distrust.
But on the “invasion” front, you are just parsing words. It doesn’t matter what you or I think. Obama orders strikes in other countries, and the media praises it. Cruz suggests the same kind of action, and carefully chosen words like “invasion” (like Iraq . . . ) come out for politically motivated reasons. The truth doesn’t matter. One side has taken over and is suppressing free speech and free thought.
That’s not comparable to Bush Derangement Syndrome. If there is a thing called “Obama Derangement Syndrome”, it’s the desperate need to see Obama as something he’s not, as a genuine president and not some comical caricature of a leader installed by foreign money and foreign interests.
Agreed. If not, he’d be the bad joke he should be. “Remember that clown, that junior senator with ties to terrorists that ran back in 2008? Can you believe he was serious?” Instead, the good people of this nation prefer Leninist-style images and The View to real leadership, and can be bought off by Billionaires via Manchurian Candidates. But I guess that’s just my “bias” talking . . .
@Richard Wheeler: #36
Since I don’t belong to a political party, I can’t vote for who I want until the different parties choose their candidates, so I usually don’t keep up on the different candidates running for their party’s nomination. All of the experts I have been reading about say that at the time the Constitution was written, “natural born citizen” meant that both parents had to be citizens of the USA for the individual to qualify to be president. The parents didn’t have to be born in the USA, but became citizens before the individual ran for president. Any candidate running for president who does not have parents who are American citizens when that person runs for the presidency, is not eligible to become president.
It is like when a person buys a house from a bank. Years later the laws about getting a loan can change. That doesn’t automatically change the contract you and the bank signed, unless the law says it does. If the new law would benefit you, you can’t go to the bank and say you want the contract signed earlier to be changed to the way the new ones are written. The new law would only apply to you getting a NEW loan.
The “natural born citizen” rule has never changed, even though how a person can become a US citizen has. The U.S. Constitution says that for a person to be qualified to be president, both of his parents have to be citizens of the USA, and that rule has never been changed.
obama is an illegal president on so many levels.
If Rubio and Cruz run for president, but don’t have both parents as American citizens, watch the propaganda media say they aren’t qualified to be president because they aren’t “natural born citizens.”
@Richard Wheeler:
Am I missing something here? Who cares? When did ‘escaping’ from communism become a bad thing? Oh, I get it, that’s next to socialism and that’s what the libs are thriving for and the thought that someone might not endorse the libs plans to socialize the world is a bad thing. Makes sense….
@Smorgasbord:
Smorg, one little difference is that the parents had to have been citizens at the time the candidate was born, not when he runs for pres.
@Smorgasbord:
So true, in addition to being an Indonesian citizen(while attending Occidental) and born a British citizen, he is also an ‘unconvicted’ felon, using a fraudulent Social Security card.
@Smorgasbord: Sounds like you are the “propaganda media” since by your understanding neither Repub candidate Cruz or Rubio is eligible to be POTUS.
@Redteam: Yes you are missing something. Escaping Communism is a good thing.
Cruz Sr. fought on side of Communist rebels in mid 50′ s and was imprisoned by Batista. He left in 57 to attend University of Texas. These are facts. Anything else is conjecture.
Semper Fi
@Redteam: #43
He has used at least 39 DIFFERENT Social Security numbers. There is only one barack obama. Anything connected to that name is him.
I’m sure Richard Wheeler is really proud that his “free press” isn’t reporting this kind of stuff.
@Redteam: #42
Thank you for correcting me on that issue. Either way, obama doesn’t qualify, but Rich and his “free press” don’t care.
@Richard Wheeler: #44
As I mentioned before, since I don’t belong to any party, I don’t follow the candidates until they are chosen by their party to run for office. I never have looked into either one’s family history to know whether their parents are “natural born citizens” or not. Since I can’t vote for either one of them to run in their party, it doesn’t make any difference. If either one of them gets the republican nomination to run for president, and that candidate isn’t a “natural born citizen,” then I will make it an issue. I worry less about the things I can’t change, than I do about the things I can.
If either one of them does get the nomination, and they are not a “natural born citizen,” the democrats don’t dare use that against him, since they had one too.
Rich,, the Constitution states… verbatim… that a POTUS candidate be “..a natural born Citizen… COMMA… or a Citizen of the United States…COMMA”.
Those two distinct and separate phrases are followed by the qualifier relating to both – “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. (of course, taking that literally, no one qualifies since no candidate today was either a natural born citizen OR a citizen in 1787 since they weren’t even born…)
According to The Constitutional Rights Foundation, that allowed for Colonial naturalized citizens to be eligible if they were naturalized before/at the time of Adoption. (Note: being as the United States didn’t exist until the Declaration, that naturalization/citizenship likely had to be recognized by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation…) That same language would preclude any naturalized citizen living today from eligibility, because they were not naturalized by September 17, 1787 – Constitution Day. This would appease the objections of John Jay, who would end up as the first Chief Justice, that no foreign born individual would control the US military forces in America’s future.
With punctuation (i.e. comma) separating “natural born citizen” and “citizen” – as well as the very important word *or* – how anyone reads that as *only* natural born citizens, beats the tar out of me. Obviously the founders were allowing more than just native born individuals (whether the English Common Law or Law of Nations definitions) by their inclusion of the secondary “citizen”status. Who it definitely excluded was any foreign born individual who became naturalized post Adoption. A bit of history on naturalization in the American colonies can be read here.
In that same document, the founders granted the role of naturalization – thereby establishing the definition of citizenship – to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. So if the qualifications for POTUS are “natural born” OR “citizen”, then Congressional power to define birth right citizenship (i.e. not needing to go thru a naturalization process) – generally reflected in SCOTUS interpretations/opinions – become viable.
The SCOTUS has never weighed in on the definition of a “natural born citizen” save in orbiter dictum remarks (i.e. casual remarks by the Justice writing the opinion but not relevant to the issue being decided). Orbiter dictum remarks are not only *not* precedents, they aren’t considered important enough for Justices to write partial agree/dissent opinions since it *is* irrelevant to the case before them.
All these obiter dictum references are in cases dating from 1898 to 1907… when birth right citizenship was still experiencing racial prejudice. Birth right citizenship – again which can be interpreted as deciding whether anyone will have to undergo the naturalization process – has been decided since Wong Kim Ark… a Chinese gentleman born in SF to Chinese parents. The entire premise of that case was whether a child born jus soli/on American soil to alien parents was a US citizen.
That decision was 6-2 yes, they are. While this birth citizenship was being granted to slaves, the jus soli status was being denied to Chinese and Native Americans. In essence, what Wong did was substantiate the commonly held practice of jus soli, but ruling that has to be color blind and not racially exclusive.
Today, 8 USC § 1401 states clearly that children born of alien parents here in the US are US citizens by birth, with the exception of children of diplomats etal.
The Obama lawsuits were primarily based on the assertion that the birth certificate was not genuine. Ergo, it wasn’t a natural born vs citizen argument, but that he was actually born in Kenya. Altho a few of the cases threw that in there too, hoping something was going to stick. Since that didn’t gain much traction amongst the citizenry, the defensive argument for birthers has now turned to the alternative… that he wasn’t a “natural born” citizen.
But then, that requires a disjointed and incorrect reading of the simple language in Article 2, Section one as “natural born citizen OR citizen”…. the power of that definition being delegated to Congress.
To my knowledge, until McCain (born at Panama’s US Naval Station) and Obama (presumably born in Hawaii but with one foreign parent) rolled around in 2008, I don’t remember a time in history that qualification has been such a major electoral beef. Both are unquestionably citizens – save to those sure that Obama was born in Kenya.
But it’s a moot point. The litigation path INRE eligibility remains strewn with bloodied plaintiff body parts. In McCain’s three lawsuits, one was written so badly the plaintiffs withdrew it themselves. Couldn’t even come up with a cogent reason for their complaint. The Hollander case in NH was dismissed for lack of standing because the injury-in-fact requirement is not met when it’s a shared interest with others. The third McCain challenge came from Markham Robinson, the chair-person elect of the American Independence Party. He was to be the elector for the AIP candidate, Alan Keys, that year. They still threw it out for lack of standing because he could show no imminent or particularized injury.
In the AIP case, the northern California District court also made note that Congress had the opportunity to challenge counting certain electoral votes (as they did in 1873 for Horace Greeley since he had died), and that the courts should not be interceding prior to the electoral process and Congress exercising their power in that process. This makes it virtually impossible to litigate, leaving only a tiny window of opportunity between confirming electoral votes and the swearing in of a new POTUS.
All but the 3rd party candidates’ lawsuit challenging Obama failed for the same reason – lack of standing. The 3rd party candidates lawsuit got thrown out because it was filed after the oath of office was taken, and the courts do not have the authority to remove a sitting President.
What should be obvious is that in 2008, both the Republican and Democrat candidates were the targets of eligibility lawsuits, and no one prevailed with their attempts on a federal level. All have become cit able precedents, and ordinary citizens can spin their wheels all they want in the future.. but the same fate will await them.
Only other Presidential candidates *might* have a chance at filing a lawsuit to challenge either Rubio or Cruz. At that point, perhaps the court would weigh in as to whether it’s citizen vs natural born citizen for qualifications, parsing that specific language. Personally, I doubt any Republican candidate would risk the ire of the base by challenging these two popular elected officials. And I also doubt that the Democrat candidate would go down that road for a second time.
The disgruntled will have better luck if they litigate at the State level, hoping to prevent a candidate from appearing on the ballot. Don’t see much recourse available at the federal level.
@MataHarley: Thank you Mata. Hopefully all will take the time to read and understand your post.
Most will stop right after the “MataHarley says” at the top, Rich. LOL