The cult of obama personality



snl sycophants


Saturday Night Live used to be funny. Devoid of creative comedic ability and chock full of intellectual laxity, it has devolved into a “bash Trump” effort every week. SNL has made no secret of its obama idolatry either. In keeping with that, SNL offered a wet kiss to obama on his way out of the Presidency.

If you’re too young to know, this is a derivative of the song sung by Lulu in the movie “To Sir, With Love” in 1967. Greg Gutfeld had some thoughts about this sycophantism:

“While division and hate is scary, it’s never as creepy as sickening love, something to keep in mind whether you adore Obama or Trump,” Gutfeld said. “Drooling toadyism is not a good look on either side, and it paves the way for evil.”

These obama worshipers have a long history of fealty. Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher lead the way in 2009 pledging subservience to their President:

Here’s the 2012 update:

Jaimie Foxx called obama “our Lord and Savior.”

Children have been indoctrinated:

Hmmm. Mindless fealty? Unquestioning obedience? Insistence on you doing the same? Children indoctrinated? I’ve seen this before:

Watch it. See if the words don’t sound familiar to those in the above videos. Have you seen anyone referring to Trump as “our Lord and Savior”? Have you seen anyone demanding that you pledge your loyalty and obedience to Donald Trump?

Just askin’

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Richard Wheeler:

RT You’ve debated many at FA on the natural born question. IMO you’ve lost em all.

You also don’t understand what you read, in addition to not having even a basic understanding of what a natural born citizen is.
I’ll refresh your memory one more time, but since you are a slow(or no) learner, I don’t expect you to pick it up.

Cruz born in Canada to American citizen mother makes him natural born with dual citizenship In addition he renounced Canadian citizenship in May of 2014.

Any person born with a split citizenship is NOT a natural born one of either. Once you are born, even if you later change your citizenship (such as renouncing) has no impact on “natural born”. Neither of Rubio’s parents were American so since he inherited the citizen ship of his parents in addition to being born in the US, he is clearly ‘split allegiance’. If Obozo Sr, was really Obozo Jr’s father, then that is a split allegiance deal also. None of that counts because he later gave up his American citizenship to become Indonesian. He has never become an American citizen again. Definition of ‘natural born American citizen’. A person that is born to two American parents without having any allegiance to any other country at birth. (Such as being born in Canada and acquiring citizenship at birth without filing the papers to ensure that you are only American (as all American children born, say in Germany, to military persons do)
Give me an example of one discussion on natural born citizen on this blog that I lost.
Just so you understand, if a law has to be applied, to make you a citizen, you are not natural born. you are naturalized. Only 180 difference.
You should attempt to stick to subjects that you, at least, have a clue on.

@RedTeamYou are in disagreement with all court decisions to date as well as over 90% of Constitutional scholars and American citizenry.
No surprise–good luck with that RT–You seem to enjoy being odd man out.

@Richard Wheeler:

@RedTeamYou are in disagreement with all court decisions to date as well as over 90% of Constitutional scholars

See, I told you that you have no basic knowledge of the subject. There are no/have not been any court cases on the subject. If you think so, cite one.
Supposedly Cruz is a ‘constitutional scholar’ if he is, then he knows the truth and for him to interpret as he apparently does, to benefit him, tells you a lot about the integrity and honesty of ‘constitutional scholars’. Why do you think almost all Supreme court decisions are split? Certainly not because of unanimous agreement. I would not put my reasoning ability behind any of the court judges.

Just in case you think 3-5million illegal voters seem high, apparently it doesn’t begin to approximate the true problem of illegal voters, Check out this link

This data is accumulated by a Dimocratic organization NPR

Ted Cruz is a Natural born Citizen and meets the requirements as enacted by the first Congress.


On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement
MAR 11, 2015
128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161
We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1×
1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×
2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×
3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888).
and enactments of the First Congress.4×
4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5×
5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898).
These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.”6×
6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries,7×
7. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63.
a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 17908×
8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795).
provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”9×
9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted).
The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.10×
10. See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.11×
11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.12×
12. Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”13×
13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).
The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.14×
14. See Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15×
15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM),
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.16×
16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), [].
Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth.17×
17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”18×
18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964,19×
19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, [].
and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.20×
20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995,

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.

RW, apparently Ca has no laws pertaining to who can vote in that state. All I can find on Google is that Ca has no id requirements to register to vote or to vote in any election. So that means anyone can register as many times as they wish under different names and then go to the poll and give them a name and vote. No ID or proof of eligibility required. That seems to imply that if I got to your polling place before you and said “Richard Wheeler” they would hand me a ballot and I could legally vote for you. Is that the way it really is? If so, how many names are you currently registered under and are you always a R or D depending on what you need to be to vote, though I guess there is no requirement there either. Seems as if there are about 15 states with laws similar to Ca that doesn’t regulate voting. I guess that means a 16 year old can vote also if no proof of anything is required. I’ve never lived in a state that did not require government issued Photo ID

@Richard Wheeler:

You wanna show me where Obama called HRC a racist liar?

TALK ABOUT WISHY F***ING WASHY!!! Do NONE of you liberals possess the courage to answer a simple question?

You WERE around during the 2008 campaign, right? You fell for Obama’s bullsh!t, didn’t you? Remember when his campaign was calling Hillary and Bill racist for various things, claiming the media covered Obama different from Hillary for one (oh, that’s not really very “racist” is it? But, then again, it never is… but RACIST they were)? Hillary surrogate Geraldine Ferraro was racist, too. None other than the honest and upstanding Donna Brazille (who would later lie and assist Hillary… the racist… in the last election; wow, is EVERY Democrat a filthy hyporcrite?) called the Clinton’s racists. EVERYBODY that doubts the Great and Powerful Obama is racist.

So, HOW ABOUT A F***ING HONEST ANSWER? Or, are you a measly little lying worm like AJ that expects everyone ELSE to answer questions but manages to weasel out of answering any themselves?

What probably misses your attention here is that some of US can disagree with each other, even about the citizenship of Cruz, and NOT call each other a RACIST. Now, don’t you wish you and your miserable party could manage that?

@July 4th American: J4th Amer

First, I’m not really impressed by anything put out by the Harvard Law Review, first because they appoint their Editors based on affirmative action rather than merit and they do not require any legal knowledge for that appointment. ie, Obozo was editor by affirmative action and still does not know his a$$ from his elbow.
But, to get to the meat of the matter based on this totally non legal epistle.

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

interesting. ‘with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding’ as in: born with a split allegiance. I think most people would be of the opinion that a person ‘naturally born’ can only be born ‘naturally born’ one way.. If you have a British Father and an American mother, then you could not be both ‘natural born’ british and ‘natural born’ American. Therefore a law would have to be applied to determine which and once a law is applied, it becomes naturalized, not natural born.

And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,

see that little letter on the end of the last word in that quote? Is that an S? Would that mean as in Mother AND Father, not mother OR father? Then go through that article and see how many times an s is included when talking originally vs how many times the s is missing when it serves the writers motives.
And RW, before you get too excited about this. This is the opinion of one law student (maybe as qualified as Obozo, affirmative action and all) at Harvard and certainly bears no resemblance to a legal opinion. The info about Goldwater, Romney and McCain was thrown in as smoke and mirrors.
Natural born means the child is born of American parents (as in mother and father) with no allegiance to any other country.
I find it interesting that for all the words written and spoken that the best someone could come up for support is just a non legal opinion from a college student.

@Bill… Deplorable Me:It sure doesn’t take much to get you to blow up and start name calling–Hilarious.
You could learn a little civility from an FA Conservative Author like Word. Maybe pick up a modicum of class as well.

RT Your source on “dead voters” was the Tea Party?? Whatever happened to them?
Re Harvard Forum—“one student” lol

@Bill… Deplorable Me: Excellent comment Bill. Most of the non-deplorables are like Rich, they like to run around and throw bombs and ask questions and never answer any. I think they just think they’re right all the time and we’re supposed to just believe them. Rich seems to be a fine fellow until it gets to politics, then he’s just totally liberal with no mind of his own. He’s still a follower of that gay animal rights guy and I guess that sways some of his political beliefs. The biggest problem I have with libs is just that they think they are right and will not listen to anything that might differ from their predisposed notions.
I mean, you got Rubio born of two Cuban parents and he’s solidly convinced he is a natural born citizen. Even though Cuba has laws that say he is a natural born cuban citizen. Wonder how a person can be ‘natural born’ of two countries at one time.

@RedTeam: The good news is that they began collecting signatures to get the Calexit on the ballot for 2018. To show how out of touch the state is with the rest of the country, Trump won the rest of the country in an electoral landslide and the popular vote by close to 2 million (not counting whatever fraud took place outside of California). California is for the most part populated by the loonie left and people whose allegiance is to somewhere other than this country as demonstrated in the protests that we witnessed. Keep Pendleton and the associated bases, allow the people who aren’t left wing loonies to bolt, let the northern part of the state secede from the southern part if they wish just like the western part of Virginia did during the CW, and let the rest of it take a hike or sell it back to Mexico. I feel sorry for rational people who are loyal to this country (like Word and Curt) who live there.

@Richard Wheeler:

Your source on “dead voters” was the Tea Party?? Whatever happened to them?

Answer without reading. It was quoted by the Tea Party from NPR, that credit was given (I’m sure I lost you there)
This sentence:

This data is accumulated by a Dimocratic organization NPR

was in comment 54.

Re Harvard Forum—“one student” lol

damn, guess I lost you twice there on that one comment.
I guess you saw no problems with that soliquy, since it seems to support your view, even though it has enough errors it would or should have been edited and rewritten before publishing. I guess grammar wasn’t the writer’s strong suit.

@another vet:I sure hope they get enough votes. I think they will have to secede as two states Gayfrancisco and Mexifornia. Of course a constitutional amendment has to be passed which requires 3/4ths of the states, but i’m sure they’ll get 49 votes of approval on the condition they build a 40 foot wall between them and the remaining US. Then unless the Mexifornians want to become Mexican citizens, they will have to bolt to Gayfrancisco to stay with their mates.


Ted Cruz’s mother is an American citizen, born in Delaware. And, she never renounced her citizenship.

@July 4th American: But she was a registered voter in Canada and you have to be a Canadian citizen to be a registered voter there. Makes no difference anyhow, his father was Cuban and that wipes out ‘natural born American’

@RedTeam: Given that they like to promote voter fraud, perhaps we (being non-residents) can vote ‘yes’ to help them out.

Even though the list says she said she was eligible to vote, that does not mean she was.

and a quote from the article:

Ted Cruz, who was a dual citizen, formally renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.

And we all know, that if Ted Cruz knew he is/was a dual citizen that he also knows that precludes him from being a ‘natural born citizen’ because the sole reason for the clause in the Constitution was to insure that no person with ‘split allegiance’ to another country could ever get in charge of the Military forces of the United States. So the very fact of renouncing was conclusive proof that he knew he was not eligible. Otherwise why do it?

Most of the non-deplorables are like Rich, they like to run around and throw bombs and ask questions and never answer any. I think they just think they’re right all the time and we’re supposed to just believe them.

Actually, in the case of Rich and AJ (it must be insulting to be grouped with AJ), they don’t pay attention to what is going on and what they are supporting. Ask them a really simple question, like pointing out Obama’s OBVIOUS contradiction, and they stutter and stammer, stall and, as we see right here, eventually disappear.

@Richard Wheeler:

It sure doesn’t take much to get you to blow up and start name calling–Hilarious.

No, what it take is for someone to continually ask questions and accuse people of not answering them (even when they have) yet do not have the guts to ANSWER questions.

I have a lot of respect for Marines; my son-in-law is a Marine; I expected a bit more fortitude from one than this. It’s just a question. Answer it.

@another vet: Then we (the United States) would have an enclave on the California coast, as in Cuba, which they would have to live with. Unless Hollywood thinks they can rally and take over Pendelton.


Does a child born in America to an American mother and non American father garner citizenship at birth?

@another vet:

can vote ‘yes’ to help them out.

If I read their law correctly, absolutely no proof of ID is required to register to vote, or to vote. You just walk in, give them the name of someone on their roll, for example, you could say ‘Rich Wheeler’ and cast your vote. So if you get to Gayfornia during the voting period go in and cast a couple dozen votes to help them out. I’m sure you could get some names out of the phone book. Or just show them your name on their voter list. They have no fraud out there, so they wouldn’t suspect a thing.

Now I know why they are squealing about there not being any voter fraud. By definition, in Gayfornia, there is no such thing.

@July 4th American: absolutely, but not ‘natural born’. they are a ‘naturalized citizen’ meaning one that takes a law applied to make them a citizen as in: Any child born in the US to an American mother and an foreign father shall be a citizen at . (but not a natural born citizen)

The catch is ‘if a law has to be applied to make them a citizen’. Any child born in the US to anyone (not embassy officials of other countries)are citizens, but not natural born citizens.

@Bill… Deplorable Me: My answer I don’t agree with either statement.
I agreed with Trump that Putin was smart and you turned it into me thinking Putin was anything but the murdering coward that we know he is.
When you did that I realized how disingenuous you are Bill and lost any respect I had for you. Only recently did I realize you’re as thin skinned as Trump.
Give your son in law a Semper Fi and a stay safe.

Re my query to you about RT’S beliefs? You call that an answer??


Is a child born of an American mother in Germany a natural born citizen?

@Bill… Deplorable Me:

No, what it take is for someone to continually ask questions and accuse people of not answering them (even when they have) yet do not have the guts to ANSWER questions.

Absolutely, that describes several of the lefties.
AJ is a troll on someone’s payroll and will be gone at the end of the month. Philip Marlowe has already left I guess. Some of them will just change identities.

@July 4th American: Depends on nationality of father. If the father is also an American AND if they file the correct documents to ensure that the child does not become a German citizen, then they would be natural born American citizen. lacking any of those. No. Germany has a law similar to the US where if you are born in Germany, you can be a German citizen unless you renounce it at birth, then you would be a dual citizen of the US and Germany and therefore not a natural born US citizen. I would like to point out that if US Military stationed in germany has a child, they immediately file papers to ‘not’ become a German citizen so they will not have a split citizenship situation and will be natural born american citizen. There must be a reason for this that someone does not want to acknowledge.

@July 4th American:

check out this document. That’s to ensure American at birth, doesn’t mention ‘natural born’


How did Ted Cruz acquire his American citizenship?

@Richard Wheeler:

My answer I don’t agree with either statement.

That’s not an answer; those are two diametrically opposing statements. Unless you are saying he lied BOTH times, which is about par for him.

I agreed with Trump that Putin was smart and you turned it into me thinking Putin was anything but the murdering coward that he we know he is.

Indeed I did. And, indeed it was disingenuous. Irritating, isn’t it, when someone does that? Maybe you will remember that the next time YOU do it, for inwas merely turning your own ploy back upon you.

@July 4th American: First, I’ve said that I’m not sure he is an American citizen. If his mother was, in fact, an American citizen when he was born, then he is an American citizen. If she was not, then he’s not. He acquired Canadian and Cuban citizenship at birth due to where he was born and the fact his father is/was Cuban at the time (and Cuba has a law similar to the US), so if his mother was an American citizen when he was born then he was born as an American, Canadian and Cuban citizen. Split allegiance, therefore, not a ‘natural born American”. (a law had to be applied to determine his citizenship) There is some evidence his mother had become a Canadian citizen prior to his birth. if so he was/is not an American.


Under the 14th amendment his mother was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore was born a US citizen, natural born under the Constitutional framework of the 14th amendment while being born in Canada.

@July 4th American: First we don’t know that his mother was a US citizen at the time he was born. The 14th amendment contains no wording about ‘natural born’ citizens, absolutely nothing. There is not even a mention of anyone being born outside of the US in that amendment. It only mentions persons born or naturalized in the US as being citizens, nothing at all about ‘natural born’.

@July 4th American: The other point is that he was born Cuban and Canadian, and, by definiton split allegiance equals ‘not natural born’ If ‘by definiton’ he is a natural born US citizen, then he is also a natural born Canadian and a ‘natural born Cuban’ and therefore having split allegiance at birth equals ‘not natural born’. My argument is not that he is or is not an American citizen. only that it is not possible for him to be a ‘natural born’ one.

I fully understand your point of view. This issue with Cruz can be complex given the input from the various countries.

It is correct that Canada observes birthright citizenship, that is if born in Canada regardless of parental citizenship, citizenship is conferred upon birth. It appears also true that with respect to his father, he also acquired Cuban citizenship at birth having at least one parent a cuban citizen at the time of birth irrespective of where the birth occurred, synonymous with our observance of citizenship. Though I have never seen discussion of Cuban citizenship in the case of Ted Cruz nor I have seen where if and when he may have renounced that citizenship. It is apparent he did so with respect to the Canadian citizenship during his effort to seek office as President.

That being said, the 14th amendment of our Constitution clarifies what the term “Natural Born” is as it relates to citizenship. Because citizenship is comferred at birth, given the requirements of such are met, one does not need to seek “Naturalizatiojn” to become a citizen. Therefore, having acquired citizenship at birth and not being required to seek Naturalization post birth, make one a “Natural born” citizen. In this case, Ted Cruz is Natural born because he did not have to seek Naturalization.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ted Cruz was not born in a U.S. state or territory, so clearly he is not a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment. However, under the McCarran-Walter Act(McCarran-Walter Act, 1952), he was still born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services summarizes the laws in effect when Ted Cruz was born:

Admittedly, this is a complex concept given the amount of variables that can be introduced into any one particular instance. The case of the former president does pose some interesting arguments given the circumstances of his birth and subsequent clarification by Congress respective to the Natural born issue.

It is refeshing to have a discussion where views may not be in agreement, but respect is clearly observed. Thank you….

@July 4th American:

It is refeshing to have a discussion where views may not be in agreement, but respect is clearly observed. Thank you….

I agree.

The 14th amendment seems to be referred to a lot when discussing ‘natural born citizens’ and yet the words are not in the 14th amendment. The wording, as I read it,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

only refers to a person being a ‘citizen of the United States’, it makes no reference to ‘natural born’. But let’s take that sentence and dissect it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, All persons born? IN the United States. are citizens of the United States? a Citizen? yes, a ‘natural born’ citizen, no. If both your parents are foreigners, you are a citizen ‘by law’ but not by ‘natural born’. All persons ‘naturalized’ in the United States are citizens? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States certainly, but they are ‘naturalized’ citizens, not ‘natural born’.
The emphasis in the statement is the same, either born or naturalized in the United States are ‘citizens’ but certainly both of those are NOT natural born.

Then you still can’t get away from the other circumstance. Assume Canada’s laws are identical to the US and assuming Cruz’s birth circumstances are as we think they are, then he would be ‘natural born citizen of Canada’ therefore he couldn’t be a natural born citizen of the US as a person can only be born one way. If that’s the case, then some law has to be applied to determine which it is. Once you have to apply a law, then it is no longer ‘natural’, it is now a legal move. By most definitions, anyone born with ‘split allegiance’ is not natural born. According to all I’ve read about the subjects by the founding fathers, their goal was to prevent someone with allegiance (split allegiance) to another country from getting control of America’s military forces. That’s why the law only applies to the president.
Let me point out again, the words ‘natural born’ appear nowhere in the 14th amendment.

Deamy eyed liberals still worshiip obama and the still kiss his rings and wash his feet and bow to his image