The Great Freeper Birther Purge of 2013 is still going on over at Free Republic. The forum owner, Jim Robinson has decreed that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. He has put up another post, his second so far, about the issue. This latest one, cited to the Dallas Morning News, adds no new scholarship to the conversation.
Is he a natural-born citizen or isn’t he? The question has been a nagging part of Barack Obama’s life ever since his first presidential campaign. No amount of birth certificates and sworn statements from state officials in Hawaii, his birthplace, seemed capable of putting the issue to rest. The “birther” movement continues pressing the question even today, five years after Obama’s election to the presidency.
The question nags anew, but this time Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz is the focus because he was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father. By law, his mother’s U.S. citizenship automatically confers natural citizenship to Cruz, just as — for those who continue to doubt the location of Obama’s birth — the citizenship of Obama’s American mother conferred it to him.
This is such a nonissue, regardless of whether the candidate is Republican or Democrat. Nevertheless, narrow-minded individuals, including some prominent personalities such as billionaire former presidential contender Donald Trump, are doggedly trying to concoct controversy and introduce doubt where there should be none.
These men have been natural U.S. citizens from birth and have every right to seek the nation’s highest office. Article II of the Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be president: that the person be at least 35 years old, a resident within the United States for 14 years and a “natural-born citizen.”
Robinson is making it clear that the Free Republic birthers had better not latch on to any Ted Cruz threads to spread their quackery. However, Robinson’s position on Obama is still unclear. He does not appear to be too well versed on the whole issue and has just decided to accept Mark Levin and Ted Cruz’s assurances. However, Robinson did make this comment, at number 103:
Of course I believe in the constitution. Cruz was born to a qualified American mother while temporarily working in Canada. He meets all the legal requirements. Don’t know if that same standard can apply to Obama (if he was not born in the US). His mother does not qualify (according to some of the posts on these threads).
103 posted on Monday, September 02, 2013 9:14:12 PM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
And, by way of update, he made this comment at 35:
That’s true, but they are leftists.
And unfortunately, there are lots of folks who have too much invested emotionally in Obama’s ineligibility, that they’re afraid Cruz will destroy their case. But I don’t know. As they’re pointing out on this very thread, Ann Dunham was not old enough at Obama’s birth to satisfy the law. [if Obama was born outside the country.]
35 posted on Monday, September 02, 2013 7:16:33 PM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
And, on a different thread, at comment #94:
Conservatives to Cruz: ‘Run, Ted, run’
Monday, September 02, 2013 12:15:45 PM 94 of 275
Jim Robinson to Col Freeper
I suspect some posters don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the actual law and the constitution but they have so much invested emotionally in the crackpot birther conspiracy theory that they’re caught in a trap of their own making. Gonna have to chew their own leg off to get free.
I am still waiting to see if he ever fully addresses the last five years of the Freeper Birthers dissembling about the need for Obama to have two citizen parents. It seems too much to just sweep under the rug. If Cruz decides to run, the question of his citizenship is certainly going to come up. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is certainly not going to let go of the issue. Nor will CDR Kerchner. How much credibility is Jim Robinson and Free Republic going to have in that battle with other conservative types?
Probably none. Walter Scott provided the reason why in his poem, Marmion:
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
Note 1. The Image. This is from the B.C. comic strip by Johnny Hart. My father used to have a lot of his paperback books, including The Wizard of Id. I loved them! Here is the original strip before I did my thing to it:
Note 2. Marmion. I never read the poem, but it sounds like a real drama-fest. Wiki says,
Marmion is an epic poem by Walter Scott about the Battle of Flodden Field (1513). It was published in 1808.
Scott started writing Marmion, his second major work, in November 1806. When Archibald Constable, the publisher, learnt of this, he offered a thousand guineas for the copyright unseen. William Miller and John Murray each agreed to take a 25% share in the project. Murray observed: “We both view it as honourable, profitable, and glorious to be concerned in the publication of a new poem by Walter Scott.” Scott later said that he thoroughly enjoyed writing the work. He told his son-in-law, Lockhart, “Oh, man, I had many a grand gallop among these braes when I was thinking of Marmion.”
In 1807 Scott practised manoeuvres with the Light Horse Volunteers (formed to defend an invasion from France) in order to polish his description of Flodden. Marmion was finished on January 22 and published on 22 February 1808 in a quarto first edition of two thousand copies. This edition, priced one and a half guineas, sold out in a month. It was followed by twelve octavo editions between 1808 and 1825.
The poem tells how Lord Marmion, a favourite of Henry VIII of England, lusts for Clara de Clare, a rich woman. He and his mistress, Constance De Beverley, forge a letter implicating Clara’s fiancé, Sir Ralph De Wilton, in treason. Constance, a dishonest nun, hopes that her aid will restore her to favour with Marmion. When De Wilton loses the duel he claims in order to defend his honour against Marmion, he is obliged to go into exile. Clara retires to a convent rather than risk Marmion’s attentions.
Constance’s hopes of a reconciliation with Marmion are dashed when he abandons her; she ends up being walled up alive in the Lindisfarne convent for breaking her vows. She takes her revenge by giving the Abbess who is one of her three judges documents that prove De Wilton’s innocence. De Wilton, having returned disguised as a pilgrim, follows Marmion to Edinburgh where he meets the Abbess, who gives him the exonerating documents. When Marmion’s host, the Earl of Angus is shown the documents, he arms De Wilton and accepts him as a knight again. De Wilton’s plans for revenge are overturned by the battle of Flodden Field. Marmion dies on the battlefield, while De Wilton displays heroism, regains his honour, retrieves his lands, and marries Clara.
September 24th, 2013 at 2:45 am
“By law, his mother’s U.S. citizenship automatically confers natural citizenship to Cruz, just as (for those who continue to doubt the location of Obama’s birth) the citizenship of Obama’s American mother conferred it to him.”
Everything in that statement is incorrect, and display ranks ignorance of the facts.
In Citizenship 101 we learned that the U.S. nationality of American women was never transmitted to their children until a period within the life-span of some of us living today. Now, with legislation in place, an American mother’s citizenship can be deemed to be inherited by her child if born abroad of a foreign father.
Those statutes do not apply to birth inside the United States, so unlike Ted Cruz, Obama’s citizenship is supposedly dependent on the 14th Amendment. The problem is that he doesn’t qualify for 14th Amendment citizenship since he was not born subject solely to the United States through a father who was fully subject. (as the amendment requires).
That is because his father was not an LPR (Legal Permanent Resident) and therefore not a member of American society. He could not be drafted and sent to war as can those citizens and immigrants who bear the responsibility to defend the women and children of the nation against aggression and conquest.
Both he and his son were beyond the political authority of the federal government because he was merely a guest of the nation and not a member of the national family. Citizenship is reserved only for the children of those who are.
But due to the fact that he was probably born in Vancouver, Canada and not the U.S., you have someone who is a statutory citizen and not a natural citizen. Same as Ted Cruz. Neither had an American father and so neither could be a natural American citizen.
But both had American mothers, and were born in Canada so they are both statutory citizens. No statutory citizen is eligible to be President because of foreign alienage.
That means principally that he had a foreign father instead of an American father which is verboten since nationality flows through the head of the family, which the father is unless the mother is divorced or single. That’s the law and always has been.
I saw it in black and white while examining a census record from over a century ago. One column has the heading “Head of household”. It was always the father.
September 25th, 2013 at 10:50 am
Where did you studies citizenship 101 Mr. Nash? Are you a professor? Have you ever been to law school?
You wrote the fact is he was probably born in Vancouver. Syntactically that makes no sense. Please name one, one, one authority that defines a statutory citizen.
You continue to talk out of your ass. You are a moron of the lowest degree. Your willful ignorance is an embarrasment to anybody who was ever had an original thought.
You are a douchebag supreme. At least you have that going for you. It is your only claim to fame.
September 25th, 2013 at 11:17 am
He knows nothing about the law and has pretty much just made up his own law. It has been pointed out to him that his interpretation of the 14th Amendment is the one rejected by the Supreme Court as it was the argument of the dissent. The Supreme Court said it was declaratory of the common law and spescifically listed all the exceptions to the common law. No court has ever said one needed to be a resident. He simply refuses to read what the Supreme Court wrote.
And he just keeps repeating that nationality flows through the father even though the Supreme Court, and all American legal authority, has repeatedly said such has never been our law. Persons born outside the US to citizen fathers are aliens unless naturalized by Congress.
Finally, he knows nothing about the law of jurisdiction and military obligations. All aliens are fully subject to the country they are in. The reason they are not drafted is a matter of mutual comity among nations. Jus soli nations such as England and the United States never had a prohibition of drafting children of aliens born on our soil. As to jurisdiction, I suggest Adrien read these sources which point out the most basic principle of International Law:
“[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886)
“As a rule a nation has full jurisdiction and control over all persons and things within its boundaries…” John William Dwyer, Leading Cases on Private International Law, pg. 47 (1904)
“All persons who are found within the boundaries of a State are to be deemed subject to the Government of the said State, whether their residence be permanent or temporary..
…a State has full and absolute jurisdiction over all persons who are found within the boundaries of a State.” Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy, First Platform of International Law, pg 175 (1876).
But Adrien doesn’t want to learn what the law actually is.
September 25th, 2013 at 7:33 pm
To be fair, Adrien is a dickhead as well as a douchebag. An onionhead as well
September 26th, 2013 at 7:43 am
I can’t wait until Squeeky finishes that sensitivity training and gets back to work!
October 16th, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Yo, Chicken Lawlor
Apparently there was no Caucasian Culture Studies available at your school in da Hood.
The course motto is “Once you go White, You know you’ve done Right”
October 28th, 2013 at 10:18 pm
“Once I go down, I really go to town.”
October 28th, 2013 at 10:19 pm
“Even if you’re brown.”
November 3rd, 2013 at 5:39 am
Hmmm! The boy Monkey has returned.
Rumors were flying on the Birther Grapevine. You & Patti Da Perv disappeared at the same time. Down Low Club was mentioned alot.
On a related note:
Obama ls a well known queer in Chicago.
November 7th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
The Tin Man
Johnny Wadd, ike, and Mr. Jones
In a room, speaking in low tones.
Till, ike in a pout,
stood up and cried out:
“I’m a dog, so give me some bones.”
November 7th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Passing the tin cup yet, twinky. It much be rough now that the industry is shutdown from an AIDs scare.
November 16th, 2013 at 9:28 am
Commie Tracker intercepts Down Lower’s email
My dearest BoyMonkey,
The moon is very lovely,
and the stars are oh so bright.
Will you, my canoodling sweetie,
be my precious homeboy tonight?