Don’t Count on Cruz ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Controversy to Just Go Away

By David Codrea

What's the difference? [Graphic by Alan Korwin]
What's the difference? [Graphic by Alan Korwin]
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)-  With Ted Cruz taking a substantial polling lead in Wisconsin, Donald Trump’s chances of amassing enough delegates to clinch the party's presidential nomination in advance of the RNC Convention are becoming increasingly problematic.

Substantial numbers of self-identified conservatives are rallying behind Cruz, as are some prominent “establishment” GOP types who have previously been hostile to the Texas senator, but who are now desperate to keep Trump from winning.

Significantly, due to his excellent record on the right to keep and bear arms, Gun Owners of America has given Cruz its enthusiastic support.

Two major issues now face him, either one of which could derail Cruz's candidacy: Unfolding allegations of marital infidelity, especially now that he is enjoying a considerable polling advantage with Republican women in Wisconsin, and the fact that he was born in Canada and, until recently, held dual citizenship. The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen,” albeit it doesn’t go into detail on what that means.

The controversy has not been dying down, even though presumptive legal challenges to date have resulted in judgments favoring Cruz’s eligibility. Those on both sides of the issue can come up with legal arguments that seem compelling depending on the predisposition of those hearing them. Being neither legal scholars nor historians, many have arrived at their beliefs based on what they want, or on faith in those making the arguments.

We may not have heard the last word from the courts either, leaving open the question of what Republicans will do if Cruz wins the nomination and his eligibility is challenged by the Democrats. While some conservatives argue they wouldn’t dare, because that would open the door to resurrecting questions about Obama, that contention is more a matter of opinion than anything else. The prize is the one that lies ahead, not behind, and people who crave power will dare much.

One gun rights advocate who has put himself out there, risking the ire of die-hard Cruz supporters, is prolific author and activist Alan Korwin.

Should We Elect an American President?” he asks in a detailed article with source citations subtitled “The ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Issue Explained.’

“It’s not a court issue,” he maintains. “[T]he Founders defined it—we’ve just forgotten.”

Korwin’s conclusion?

The Founders wanted and specified a totally American president: two citizen parents and born here. It is documented beyond reproach in the historical record.

The thing is, saying it’s not a court issue doesn’t mean it won’t end up there. But before it does, there’s something only Ted Cruz can do that could potentially change the legal opinions of those who are currently on record backing his eligibility. Per The North American Law Center:

At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.

This is the point where a lot of angry objections could be raised that really do nothing more than question motives or attempt to kill the messenger. Those interested in the truth, whichever way it shakes out, will recognize those for what they are: distractions.

The question that matters: Is that true? Has Cruz sealed records, and might they contain information that could change supporter’s opinions?

The only one who can answer that, and do it now, before everything blows up in the faces of his supporters, is Ted Cruz. He should release all documents that could shed light without delay. If he’s certain of his legal position, why wouldn’t he?

Not doing so will only lead to speculation that they would reveal considerations that could make rulings go the other way.  Besides, he owes full disclosure on this to everyone supporting and pinning their hopes on him, as well as to all Americans.

True, nothing he does will alter any of the arguments Korwin makes. But it can show if those who argue in Cruz’s favor have based their premises on the totality of what the documents reveal.

In a nutshell: Assume you're an employer with a job opening. You ask a candidate for documentation on background information needed to meet required hiring qualifications. He refuses to produce it, and ignores or deflects when you press.

How do you hire him without violating mandatory policy, which in this case, would be the Constitution?

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 67 thoughts on “Don’t Count on Cruz ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Controversy to Just Go Away

    1. I had a lovely and relaxing ride. It is like being part of the wind.
      John C. Freemont is an irrelevant red herring.
      We have our own Consititution and statues now. English common law is just an irrelevant red herring. The U.S. recognizes dual citizenship, so even if what you say is true about the former presidents, it is still a red herring. Odd how my Blacks, 5th ed. does not have NBC, but even if it did, that definition would not be controlling. Another red herring. Dicta from twenty appeals cases none on all fours, how …unimpressive.
      I think that gets us to “Do you have a S. Ct case where the presidency was the issue in controversy, and the issue was determined by Article II, sect. 5?” Then you wrote, “Answer: No, of course not.” I think that leaves you short.
      I think that I will stick to the plain meaning of the words and Dr. Franklins reference book definition. A far simpler analysis and a bright line rule. I think that leave me with two pair to your nothing of the kind.

      1. Re: ” Dr. Franklins reference book definition,,,”

        Answer: By that you mean Vattel. Well, yes, we know that Franklin and others did read Vattel. But then they read a lot of other books too—-including Blackstone, of course, and Blackstone said that every child born on the soil is Natural Born. Moreover, Vattel recommended several things that the US Constitution did not adopt, like a class of nobles and a state religion, and Vattel is not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about 15 times, and always with praise.

        In short, the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Heritage Foundation book are right, the term really did come from the COMMON LAW (which, John Jay was an expert in BTW, and which he wrote into the first constitution of the state of New York, the 1777 Constitution), and the notion that the term comes from Vattel is WRONG.

        As for the common meaning of the term, the fact that you know very little history does not change that the COMMON MEANING of the term refers to the place of birth. An example. IN World War I, men who registered for the draft were asked whether they were citizens or not, and then, if they were, they were asked whether they were naturalized or natural born. There were only two possibilities. If you were born in a foreign country and were a citizen, you had to be Naturalized—that was the only way to be a citizen if you were born in a foreign country. And if you were born in the USA, you were a Natural Born Citizen.

        That, as noted, is what Tucker and Rawle, who KNEW the writers of the US Constitution, said too, and so did the Lynch v. Clarke case,and so did the US Supreme Court in the WKA ruling and in US v. Rhodes, and that is what Fremont believed too (or he would not have written that his father was a French citizen in his bio.), And that, BTW, is what Trump believes too (his mother was born in Scotland, and Trump has never shown that she was naturalized before she was born—-which he would have if he thought that if she were not naturalized before he was born he would not be a Natural Born US citizen).

        And that is what the twenty or so appeals courts ALL RULING ON PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY all ruled too: Here are some of them:

        Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”

        Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

        Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

        Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

        Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

        Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

        Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

        And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

        No, those rulings are not dicta. They were asked to decide whether or not Obama (or in one case McCain) was eligible to be president, and they ALL ruled that if a person was born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, the answer is YES (except of course for the families of foreign diplomats).

        And that, RATIONAL people will realize, is why the chief justice of the USA swore in Obama and why John McCain and Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and Ron Paul and Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann and Gingrich and Huckabee and the Republican Party did not object to his being sworn in.

    2. Dear Mr. Strauss,
      None of these cases are on all fours. You know what dicta is, right? Fred Thompson, English common law precedent applied to us, the CRS, not convincing. Do you have a S. Ct case where the presidency was the issue in controversy, and the issue was determined by Article II, sect. 5? What word did you look up in Blacks?
      I really don’t want to investigated all the almost relevant stuff that you come up with because it takes too long, does not pan out, and I really do have other things that I have to do. Ok, I an going to go and ride my thoroughbred, now. Have a nice day.

      1. Re: ” Do you have a S. Ct case where the presidency was the issue in controversy, and the issue was determined by Article II, sect. 5?”

        Answer: No, of course not. If there had been such a case, we’d all be quoting it. But when there isn’t a Supreme Court case on an issue, the rational thing is to check the appeals court cases, which ALL have ruled against the “you gotta have two citizen parents” idea. And that in fact is some TWENTY cases, of which I have quotations from some of them.

        Just as importantly, in ONE of those appeals court rulings (at least one), the “you gotta have two citizen parents” side appealed to the US Supreme Court—–which turned down that appeal. Now, of course, there are MANY reasons why the US Supreme Court would turn down an appeal of a case. But one of them, perhaps the main one, was that it AGREES with the lower court ruling, and that ruling—like the other TWENTY rulings—all said that birth on US soil is sufficient to be a Natural Born US Citizen. Want to see some of the quotations???

        Re Blacks Law Dictionary. Here is what it said:

        “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

        Re: Fred Thompson saying that English Common law applies—well, it DOES. That is what the WKA ruling said, and that is what the Heritage Foundation book says, and that is the way that Tucker and Rawle, who KNEW the writers of the US Constitution, used the Natural Born Citizen, exactly the same way as Natural Born Subject was used in THE COMMON LAW.

        BTW, in addition to Obama, at least two presidents AFTER the expiration of the grandfather clause had foreign fathers, and two had foreign mothers (who were only naturalized by their marriage to the fathers, but did not swear an oath of allegiance or give up their foreign citizenship, which of course meant that they were dual citizens at birth, as was one of their children, Woodrow Wilson), and in addition to those, there was at least one vice president with TWO foreign parents at the time of birth (and vice presidents have to have the same NBC status as presidents). Oh, and the first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, John C. Fremont, had a foreign father, French, who had not been naturalized and did not intend to be naturalized, Fremont proclaimed that fact in his campaign bio——which of course he would not have done if he had to have two citizen parents in order to be a Natural Born US Citizen. (The presidents in addition to Obama who had foreign fathers were James Buchanan and Chester A Arthur. The presidents with dual citizen mothers were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover, and the vice president was Spiro Agnew.)

        HAVE A NICE RIDE.

    3. Questions: Has Cruz ever held a Canadian Passport?
      Has Cruz ever paid taxes in Canada?
      Has Cruz ever held a Canadian Driver’s License?
      Has Cruz ever held a Canadian Medical Card?
      Has Cruz ever served in the Canadian Military?
      Has Cruz ever filled out any document stating that he is a Canadian Citizen?
      (unlike Obama who stated on several application forms that he was born in Kenya).
      I think that you’ll quickly discover that Prince Hashim, has engaged in all of the above
      where it relates to Jordan.
      Natural Born Citizen? What a poor choice of words for such an important Article of the Constitution. Perhaps we are dealing with a term which has come to have a different meaning than it did in 1787. Well Regulated Militia had a very different meaning in 1787 than it is interpreted by many to have today, Well regulated originally meant well trained, or proficient (per Mr. Webster). Has anyone bothered to peruse the Federalist Papers to see what’s there about who is qualified to become President?

      1. Have YOU bothered to read Korwin’s article and the articles it sources? Or are we supposed to do it for you?

        1. Re Korwin’s article.

          It says: “The Founders wanted and specified a totally American president: two citizen parents and born here. It is documented beyond reproach in the historical record.”

          HOWEVER, that is total baloney. The founders (actually, the writers of the US Constitution are known as THE FRAMERS) did not say any such thing, and they easily could have in the Federalist Papers or in other writings, but they did not say anything like it AT ALL.

          And they had two friends, the legal scholars Tucker and Rawle, and both of them used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that it was used in the common law, under which every child born on the soil of the country is Natural Born.

          “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

          “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

          And that, BTW, is the way that the Lynch v. Clarke case and the Wong Kim Ark case ruled too.

          And that is why the Heritage Foundation book wrote:

          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          And that is the way that some 20 or so appeals courts all have ruled, all of them ruling on presidential eligibility (want to see some of the rulings???), and that is why the chief justice of the United States (who knows the US Constitution even if you disagree with him on some rulings) swore in Obama after each election, and that is why John McCain and Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object. (Neither did Gingrich or Santorum or Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Michele Bachmann.)

          1. You’re prevaricating, evading and smokescreening again. For example, note that *I* objected, and so has Ann Coulter and others, but even if we hadn’t, it doesn’t legitimize Comrade Hussein or Ted Cruz. I did not delegate my rights to Ed Meese, nor did I give him the power to represent me.

            And your hero Chief “Justice” John Obamacare Roberts obviously doesn’t either doesn’t give a crap about the Constitution or doesn’t know it as well as you think he does. He’s about as honest and principled as you are.

            You’re also evading J. Neil Schulman’s observation:
            “Within the past two years Ted Cruz, a Harvard-educated lawyer, was knowingly a subject of a foreign monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Find me any of the framers of the Constitution who would not have considered that a disqualification for President of the United States.”

            1. Re: “Find me any of the framers of the Constitution who would not have considered that a disqualification for President of the United States.”

              The answer to that is easy—-ALL of them. It’s simple, if they had wanted to make a person who had at one time been a dual citizen and hence was in that part a subject of a foreign monarch not eligible THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but they didn’t. Not one of them.

              In fact, we have had several dual citizens as president, including James Madison, who was made a full voting citizen of France during the French Revolution.

              After the expiration of the grandfather clause, James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur both had foreign fathers, as did Obama, and Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had foreign mothers who never were naturalized under today’s rules (having to give up foreign citizenship and swearing an oath of allegiance), and so since THEY were dual citizens, Wilson (but not Hoover) was a dual citizen of England when he was born.

              Vice presidents, of course, have to fit the same Natural Born Citizen requirements as presidents, and Spiro Agnew had two foreign parents when he was born. The very first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, John C. Fremont, had a French father who was never naturalized and was intending to return to France when he died. Fremont certainly would not have proclaimed that fact proudly in his campaign bio if he had a notion that he had to have two citizen parents in order to be eligible. (Fremont lost that election, but it was not because of the issue of Natural Born Citizen status.)

              MORE importantly, the legal scholars Tucker and Rawle, who KNEW the writers of the US Constitution, used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way as in the common law, as did the Lynch v. Clarke case and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

          2. Your own quote is “Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …” Well, Soetoro (aka Obama) and Cruz were both born abroad of the United States, so doesn’t that make it much less certain that they are NBCs eligible to serve as President?
            Nor were Barry or Ted born within the with in the U.S. and that seems to work against your argument , too.
            I think that the Chief Justice swore in Barry Soetoro because the CJ didn’t have any choice. Refusing to swear in Barry is not the proper remedy, nor was there a case in controversy before the court. So that is no proof.
            I’ll get right on that Lynch case and the Wong Kim Ark case.

            1. Ok, Wong Kim Ark v. US: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature with which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all CHILDREN BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
              This does not help your argument. Barry and Ted were not BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS.
              On to Lynch v. Clarke…

            2. Re: “Well, Soetoro (aka Obama) and Cruz were both born abroad…”

              Actually, Obama (and his name really is Obama) was born IN HAWAII.

              Obama really was born in Hawaii, as shown by his HAWAII birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 (and only the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers and it only did so for births in Hawaii).

              Oh, and birther sites LIED when they said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. She really said that he was born IN HAWAII in three interviews of which birther sites showed their readers only part of one, carefully cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where he was born and replied: “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” (Now I wonder why a birther site would do that?)

              And there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother HAD A PASSPORT in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time. And EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad during the last few months of pregnancy at the time due to the risk of stillbirths. Yet BOTH of those highly unlikely things would have had to have happened AND the officials of BOTH parties lied AND the Index Data and the birth notices (on microfilm rolls in two libraries) would have had to have been forged for Obama to have been born in a foreign country and not in HAWAII.

            3. Re: WKA “quote.” (That is from the Minor v. Happersett decision, which was before the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and later rulings supersede earlier ones).

              Here is that the Wong Kim Ark ruling REALLY said:

              “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [actually, those are the same exceptions mentioned by the Heritage Foundation book] , since as before the Revolution.”

              And it also said:

              “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

              And it also said:

              “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

              III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

              Note that the above quotation says the same rule was in effect in England AND in the colonies AND in the early states AND “under the Constitution.”

              That is why the Heritage Foundation book wrote:

              “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

              …and so do senators Hatch and Graham and the late former senator Fred Thompson and Black’s Law Dictionary and the Congressional Research Service and every single appeals court that has taken up the matter of presidential eligibility, some twenty or so rulings—-want me to show quotations from some of them???

    4. doesn’t everyone want to know why Ted had his Mother’s records sealed. Two reason he Mom voted in Canadian which means she gave up her US citizenship to vote there. The main reason they are sealed because when Ted was born He couldn’t be American and Canadian Canada didn’t allow dual citizenship for more than 7 years after his birth. His parents declared him a Canadian citizen so they wouldn’t have to leave Canada

    5. Within the past two years Ted Cruz, a Harvard-educated lawyer, was knowingly a subject of a foreign monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Find me any of the framers of the Constitution who would not have considered that a disqualification for President of the United States.

    6. McCain was born on the US Naval Base in the US Canal Zone. The story that he was born in Panama itself is a lie and a FORGED birth certificate posted by a McCain enemy (probably a Democrat).

      Re: ” Obama had only one citizen parent, not the required two, plus he was adopted by his Indonesian step father, making him an Indonesian citizen.”

      Answer: Obama was never adopted and never became an Indonesian citizen as a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm (Call during office hours, of course).

      Obama is a Natural Born US Citizen even though he has only one US citizen parent because he was BORN ON US SOIL and that alone is sufficient.

      In fact, we have had several dual citizens as president, including James Madison who was made a full voting citizen of France during the French Revolution.

      After the expiration of the grandfather clause, James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur both had foreign fathers, as did Obama, and Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had foreign mothers who never were naturalized under today’s rules (having to give up foreign citizenship and swearing an oath of allegiance), and so since THEY were dual citizens, Wilson (but not Hoover) was a dual citizen of England when he was born.

      Vice presidents, of course, have to fit the same Natural Born Citizen requirements as presidents, and Spiro Agnew had two foreign parents when he was born. The very first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, John C. Fremont, had a French father who was never naturalized and was intending to return to France when he died. Fremont certainly would not have proclaimed that fact proudly in his campaign bio if he had a notion that he had to have two citizen parents in order to be eligible. (Fremont lost that election, but it was not because of the issue of Natural Born Citizen status.)

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      And THAT is why the chief justice of the USA swore in Obama after each election, and it is why John McCain and Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object. (Neither did Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or the Breitbart site or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee or Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Michele Bachmann.)

      1. Bzzzzz. Wrong and subversive.

        Meese, Reagan, and Heritage notwithstanding. “Heritage” also urged George the Elder to decree a federal “assault weapon” import ban, which immediately led to California’s Assault Weapon ban, followed by the federal ban, the New Jersey ban, etc. So what? I have not given Heritage, Meese, McCain (R – Mexico), Paul RYNO, Mitt RomneyCare, Glen Beck, Newt Gingrich, Huckleberry, Santorum, The Pauls, Sarah P, or anyone else permission to represent me, betray my heritage or “interpret” the Constitution on my behalf.

        Nor did I give treasonous Supreme Court “justices” permission to bind the country to bad faith subversive “interpretations”. The majority of those “justices” have declared all sorts of perversions, subversions and treasons “constitutional”. Does that settle the issue? Maybe for subversives. Not for loyal Americans.

        The Framers followed de Vatel’s Law of Nations, not the ambiguous and dangerous natural born citizenship common law rules of the monarchy they just broke out from under. Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis. The Framers wanted an extra level of insurance against foreign allegiance in the President, CEO, Commander In Chief. That’s why it’s Natural Born and not just citizen.

        Actually, Ann Coulter and others have objected, but even if if they hadn’t it would be irrelevant. I and others raised the issue many times.

        Like Cruz himself, Cruzbots are ‘constitutionalists’ right up until the Constitution is inconvenient for their agenda. Otherwise Cruz would never have prioritized political patronage over duty to country, never would’ve created John Obamacare Roberts, the “lawyers’ lawyer”, and led the charge to put him on the U.S. Supreme Court, telling the world that J.Obamacare Roberts and GW “Guest Worker” Bush were “principled conservatives”. Don’t like Obamacare? Think it’s a tad unconstitutional? Thank Ted Cruz.

        How many times did “dual” Canadian citizen Cruz falsely swear the following oath to God and country with
        his hand on The Bible?

        “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and
        domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

        Cruz became an executive officer in 1999 and thereafter held various posts requiring the oath. e.g., Director of FTC Office of Policy Planning; Associate Deputy AG, Texas Solicitor General; United States Senator. He should’ve renounced Canadian citizenship decades ago.

        “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…” U.S. Constitution, Article 6.

        PERSONALLY bound to support this Constitution, not “obey the Supreme Court” or shirk your moral responsibility off to Ed Meese, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

        Cruz took the oath and kept Canadian citizenship anyway. How many times did he falsely swear to have renounced all allegiance to any other country without evasion so help him God?

        Some constitutionalist. The following should also sound vaguely familiar:

        “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

        How many times did Ted Cruz say that with his hand over his heart?

        1. NO they did not follow Vattel’s Law of Nations. It was not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers.

          Not even once, while the common law was mentioned about 15 times and Blackstone five times. The term really does come from THE COMMON LAW. In short, the Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are WRONG.

          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          And the same was also said by Senators Hatch and Graham and the late former CONSERVATIVE senator Fred Thompson and Black’s Law Dictionary—-not to mention the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling and the rulings of about twenty appeals courts on the issue of Obama’s presidential eligibility alone (Want to see some quotations from the rulings???).

          Moreover, we have had several dual citizens as president, including James Madison who was made a full voting citizen of France during the French Revolution. After the expiration of the grandfather clause, James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur both had foreign fathers, as did Obama, and Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had foreign mothers who never were naturalized under today’s rules (having to give up foreign citizenship and swearing an oath of allegiance), and so since THEY were dual citizens, Wilson (but not Hoover) was a dual citizen of England when he was born. Vice presidents, of course, have to fit the same Natural Born Citizen requirements as presidents, and Spiro Agnew had two foreign parents when he was born. The very first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, John C. Fremont, had a French father who was never naturalized and was intending to return to France when he died. Fremont certainly would not have proclaimed that fact proudly in his campaign bio if he had a notion that he had to have two citizen parents in order to be eligible. (Fremont lost that election, but it was not because of the issue of Natural Born Citizen status.) Also we had at least one vice president with two foreign parents at the time of his birth, Sprio Agnew (and vice presidents are also required to be Natural Born US Citizens).

          BTW, that is why the chief justice of the USA swore in Obama after each election (and he really does know the US Constitution, even if you disagree with him on some rulings). And that is also why John McCain and Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object. (Neither did Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee or Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Michele Bachmann.)

          1. Since when is the Federalist the sole source of background? Does it raise the Natural Born Citizenship issue? No. You left that little part out, boyo. Nice try.

            1. If the Federalist Papers does not mention Vattel, and NO member of the Constitutional Convention mentioned Vattel, and Tucker and Rawle and the Lynch v. Clarke case all used the term Natural Born Citizen the way that the common law did, and that is what the US Supreme Court said in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, then, to use your own phrase “Since when” is the speculation of BIRTHERS that Vattel was used evidence that it was? NO, it wasn’t. It was the common law, which was, duh, COMMON, and if the writers of the Constitution had switched from the common law to Vattel, they would have said so ,and said why——-but they did neither.

              In other words, to repeat, the Heritage Foundation and the Wong Kim Ark ruling are right, and you are wrong.

        2. Vattel was not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about 15 times and Blackstone five times. In short, the Heritage Foundation and Tucker and Rawle (who KNEW the writers of the US Constitution) were right, the term really does come from THE COMMON LAW, and in the Common Law every child born on the soil of the country is Natural Born, which is why the chief justice of the USA swore in Obama, and John McCain and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party did not object.

    7. John MeCain and Barrack Obama were NOT eligible to be president of the US for precisely the same reason Ted Cruz is not eligible. McCain was not born in the Canal Zone, then a US protectorate, he was born in Panama itself making him a citizen of Panama. Obama had only one citizen parent, not the required two, plus he was adopted by his Indonesian step father, making him an Indonesian citizen.

      Everyone should also know that at one time, the US government was much more rigid about citizenship, automatically rescinding it if you accepted citizenship in another country.

    8. If the maoscumunist who’s citizenship is more questionable is in the oval mosque, than there is no reason why Cruz, who never attended a madrasis or an American college on a foreign grant, who is much more qualified for the position and is more of an American should not be eligible for the position. The Rule has already been swept under the rug.

    9. And how many years has Prince Hashim of Jordan LIVED in America ???

      Article II Section 1 states — ” been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

    10. You know guys, all this dither over one’s “Natural Born” citizenship could be boiled down to the fact that only American Natives are Natural Born.

    11. It iukdnt matter if he pulled an Obama and refuses to release his records. Can you refuse to release tax statements to the IRS. As a point of constitutional correctness if I may, for any office of leadership you are to be PROVEN a citizen. Obama completely circumvented the system and on political correctness and fear of being called a racist the republican party raised no voice. I hate the SOB but everyone who failed to force the subject are also sharing in his blood guilt. Will it happen again with Cruz? Why are we not marching on the Whitehouse right now demanding Obama be impeached for treason, lying ect. Will we allow Killery Clinton to do her damage. Cruz should be forced to explain and release cuz this is no different than obama. The American people have become lazy and spoiled in the masses. Obama and Hillary belong in prison and idiots still support them. Why. If you are supect in a crime you cannot just simply refuse to cooperate and the justice system leave you alone. Don’t let Cruz or Hillary call the path of OBAMA cheating the system and essentially saying we are all to stupid to see thru the smoke screen. Do something and lets start a petition and dead Cruz and Hillary come clean or drop from the race.

      1. Re: ” As a point of constitutional correctness if I may, for any office of leadership you are to be PROVEN a citizen. Obama completely circumvented the system…”

        Answer: Obama showed BOTH his short form and his long form birth certificate from Hawaii. BOTH of them. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them both to him and that ALL the facts on the copies that were published are EXACTLY the same as on what they sent him. And Obama’s birth in Hawaii has also been confirmed by (1) the public Index Data file; (2) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and stored on two microfilm rolls (one for each newspaper) both of which are in two libraries, and, ONLY the DOH could send those birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii. And, guess what, there isn’t even evidence that Obama’s mother had a PASSPORT in 1961, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 due to the risk of stillbirths. Yet BOTH of those highly unlikely things would have had to have happened AND the short for and long form birth certificates be forged AND the Index Data AND the birth notice microfilm rolls also be forged (and slipped into the two libraries replacing the old two rolls without anyone noticing) for Obama to have been born anywhere else than in HAWAII.

        1. I don’t know whether President Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere. I don’t know whether he is a citizen or not. The answer to both those questions lies outside my area of expertise. What I do know is that his Birth Certificate as made available at WhiteHouse.gov is a forgery, and not a very convincing one. All you need to do to verify this is download the birth certificate, open it in Adobe Illustrator, and notice that the pdf has been composed out of layer after layer of imbedded images. That doesn’t happen with a scan. It only happens when you add elements to a document. I wrote both Fox News and asked them to simply interview an Adobe engineer and ask how this is possible. But the incessant mocking of anyone who questioned Obama’s eligibility for president was apparently too withering for Fox to brave. No doubt they could have easily confirmed this with their art department. Check out the YouTube video below. It does a good job of exposing the fraud. What I don’t know is the reason for the fraud.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjvGcF1ZHXU

          1. Re: “What I do know is that his Birth Certificate….is a forgery.”

            Answer: No, you do not know that at all. You THINK it. And you think it because of the layers. But, what you do not know is that layers are NORMAL when a complex document is scanned, compressed and put into PDF and then that file is opened in Adobe Illustrator. Birther sites did not tell you that . They led you to believe that layers were not normal—but they are. That is how PDF works. (Did you think that it made a flat file like JPG?)

            There is no reason for the “fraud” because there isn’t any fraud. You have been mislead. You are GULLIBLE.

            There is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate. But birthers, of course, keep claiming that there is for their own obvious motives.

            Those are the same motives that led birther sites to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—-when she really said that he was born IN HAWAII in three interviews. In fact, birther sites showed only part of one of those three interviews, carefully cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where he was born and replied: “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” So birther sites are lying.

            Moreover, they are trying to hide the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. For example, they never showed their readers that FOUR officials of Hawaii including the former Republican governor had repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and long form Hawaii birth certificates to Obama and that every single fact on the copies that the White House put online are exactly the same as on what they sent him.

            AND, guess what, there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother HAD A PASSPORT in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time. And even fewer, EXTREMELY few, women traveled abroad during the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birthers hope that they will find someone so GULLIBLE that they will just assume that both of those two unlikely things took place AND that the officials of both parties in Hawaii are lying AND that Obama’s birth certificate is forged AND that the public Index Data file was forged AND that the birth notices to the 1961 Hawaii newspapers were forged, and in this case forged on two different microfilm rolls (one for each newspaper) and then both of them were smuggled into two different libraries without anyone noticing.

            The above makes it obvious that the “it was forged” claim comes from birther motives.

            As discussed, another classic birther ploy is to claim “see, there are layers, there would not be layers if it were not forged.” But, duh, layers are NORMAL when a complex document is scanned, compressed and put into PDF and then that PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator. That is how PDF works with a complex scanned document, and Adobe is designed to identify and work with layers when it opens a PDF file.

            Other claims are answered by THIS (which birther sites have never been able to answer): http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

            1. BZZZZZ. Wrong. Yes, he does know it’s a forgery.

              What your hysterical smokescreen obscures is that if the cert were real, Obama could’ve released a pure image of it without the layers and manipulation. Only reason he wouldn’t is that he couldn’t. You don’t have to be a “birther” to get that. Just rational and honest.

              Phony conservatives like you are why this country is going down the tubes.

            2. No, I know it. I made no claims as to where Obama was born or whether he is or isn’t a citizen. Stick to the document only. As far as what I’ve said everything else in your reply is irrelevant. How on earth does a scan generate layers? Let alone layers of different densities with different artifacts? Please explain. Here’s what I did. I downloaded the Birth Certificate. Changed it to a bit map image. Scanned it. Opened it as a pdf, and guess what? No layers. Even if there is some “make layers” button on a some special text reading scanner, explain how a scan produces layers ONLY on the information within the fields that you’d have to change in order to FAKE a birth certificate. You obviously don’t work in the graphics field. I invite everyone to view the youtube videos I attach below. I didn’t create the videos but followed up on them and was surprised to see what they revealed is true. smrstrauss may not want it to be, but it is. What’s more, it’s as if whoever released the Birth Certificate is begging to be challenged. The doctor’s signature, U.K Le Lee? Really? And why does the document bend and the background not bend? Obviously it was added later. If that was added later what else was? Why deliberately manipulate a Birth Certificate? I’m not a “birther.” Never have been. Unless she renounced her citizenship, Obama’s mother was obviously a citizen. I wrote a number of news organizations and asked them to interview an Adobe engineer to find out how this is possible. No response.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjvGcF1ZHXU
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw

            3. Re: “Obama could’ve released a pure image of it without the layers and manipulation.”

              Answer: There was no manipulation at all, and layers are NORMAL when a complex document is scanned, compressed and put into PDF and then that file is opened in Adobe Illustrator.

              THAT’S all. Did you think that PDF did not use layers? Did you think that it produced flat files like JPG? Well, it doesn’t.

              Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

            4. Just tried it. And smrstrauss is wrong again. Put a complex DMV doc into the scanner, saved it as a pdf. Opened it in Illustrator and there were exactly 3 layers. Layer 1: Group, Layer 2: Image (the image as scanned with no hanky panky) Layer 3: Clipping. So smrstrauss is wrong again. Have you tried it smrstrauss? Did you get different results? Did you get names changed? Dates added? Serial numbers corrected? Do you even have Illustrator on your computer? If you do, please enlighten us as to the steps you took to get specific elements of information to change automatically. I don’t know, maybe it only works on Presidential Birth Certificates.

            5. Of course, you’re still evading the issue. Obama could’ve released a pure image without any layers, IF the certificate was real.

            6. Re: “Of course, you’re still evading the issue. Obama could’ve released a pure image without any layers, IF the certificate was real.”

              Answer: It is real, and PDF uses layers, so he couldn’t. Once they decided to use PDF—which is normal in government–it would show layers. That’s all. There may be more layers or less depending on the complexity of the document. First it is on SECURITY PAPER, which makes it very complex to start, then it has both typed and printed text, which makes it even more complex, then it has hand written text in addition to the text, then it has the penciled text. In other words, it was COMPLEX—and PDF represents a complex compressed document with LAYERS.

            7. What is up with you smrstrauss? Have a little intellectual curiosity. Stop reciting talking points. Dare to question authority and address the FACTS. Have you tried exactly what you are suggesting? I have. You don’t get random layers. You get exactly the layers I said. One for image. One for clipping path. One to group them both. I just tried it. You should do the same instead of believing people who know NOTHING about graphics, scans, or for that matter, forgery. Russn8r is exactly right. If you CAN send a jpg, gif or png, why on earth would you post a pdf with multiple layers down to the level of replacing individual characters? If you haven’t watched the YouTube videos and tried this yourself, then you’re not worth talking to.
              http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

            8. Hi Swill:

              smrstrauss is a relentless prevaricating shill. Again he evades the issue with transparent BS and circular reasoning amounting to “it’s real therefore it’s real.”

              As you point out, there is no reason not to release a pure image in jpg, gif AND png format, IN addition to the PDF.

              “Once the decision had been made” and “usual in government” are irrelevant diversionary strawman.

              He is also lying about the PDF of course.

            9. Re: “As you point out, there is no reason not to release a pure image in jpg, gif AND png format, IN addition to the PDF.”

              There are actually two reasons: (1) in government PDF is normal, and (2) unpaid interns make the copies and scan the images at the White House. So ,duh, they used the standard format, PDF, and nothing else.

              BIRTHERS, and birthers only, claim that because there are layers in PDF, the White House should have used something else. Well, maybe it should have, but the fact that it used the standard government format, PDF, proves nothing.

              HOWEVER, there actually IS a JPG version, the one posted by Savannah Gutherie. Here it is:

              https://1776channel.com/2015/02/11/us/savannah-guthrie-another-nbc-credibility-disaster/

              Birthers have of course tried to disprove that JPG image (just as they tried to disprove the short form and the White House PDF of the long form—and for the same MOTIVES)—but they haven’t.

            10. Re: “How on earth does a scan generate layers? Let alone layers of different densities with different artifacts?”

              As for the layers, the answer is simple. Because that is how PDF works, It represents complex images with LAYERS—but those layers are not visible by themselves. They ARE visible when the PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator.

              As for different densities and different artifacts, that has been answered by this:

              http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

            11. You crack me up smrstrauss. You go along blithely ignoring the facts. I already told you I scanned a “complex” document per your instruction today. Have YOU TRIED IT? The doc I scanned had signatures, a rubber stamped serial number and typed info in required fields. I scanned it, converted to a PDF and guess what? There were three layers. Like always. The image, the clipping path and the two grouped. Just as you would suspect. There was NOTHING like the layers on the Obama Birth Certificate. I’m not a “birther.” I’m not arguing about where Obama was born or whether he’s a citizen. I’m just saying there are anomalies with his Birth Certificate that I’d sure like to see an Adobe engineer explain and replicate. Why has this simple demonstration not been done? If they can replicate what happened, I’ll even post a retraction. But I doubt it’s possible to duplicate the results. There are just too many added layers of critical info.
              Watch the video:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjvGcF1ZHXU

            12. Re: “I already told you I scanned a “complex” document per your instruction today.”

              And you admitted that it had layers. Why did it have layers? Because that is how PDF WORKS, and with documents that are even more complex than what you tried, there will be more layers. BTW, did you try to scan a document ON SECURITY PAPER???

              Other alleged anomalies are answered by this:

              http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

            13. What is this? Arguing by channeling your inner child? Of course PDFs have layers. I already told you every scanned pdf will have 3 layers. Listen carefully now because I don’t want to repeat myself again. Layer 1 is the scanned image. Intact. No funny business. Layer 2 is the clipping path. Layer 3 is those two layers combined into a group. PLEASE try this before repeating the claptrap you’ve been pedaling. You OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING about PDFs, Illustrator, scans or anything else about graphics work. Obama’s birth certificate has 9 main layers and many, many sub layers. If you want to make your argument, try to replicate what happened to Obama’s birth certificate on your own, and then post what you did to achieve the results. Or get someone at Adobe to the same. That would be scientific. Everything else is just talking points. I’ve been really patient talking to you. But it’s not worth it. You have no intellectual curiosity.

            14. Re: “I already told you every scanned pdf will have 3 layers.”

              Answer: That is what you SAID, and maybe you really think it. But the truth of the matter is that some will have MORE than three layers, and you have not tried doing it with SECURITY PAPER, and so you do not know.

              Here is what the National Review said:

              “: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

              Let me point out that the quotation doe not merely say layers. It says “layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF.”

              And the motives for birthers to lie remain the same—-and they have lied desperately in the past, hoping to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii with such blatant lies as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when she really said that he was born in HAWAII. And, if there had been a shred of evidence that the National Review was wrong and the birther claims about layers were right Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove would have said so (or Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck and Gingrich and Santorum and Huckabee). But not one of them ever did.

            15. Swill said:

              “Do you think just because National Review says something it’s automatically true?”

              Answer: Does any RATIONAL person think Do you think that just because Swill says something it’s automatically true?

              The facts are that the National Review has confirmed the findings of other experts, real experts (whom birther sites did not show their readers of course), that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate. In contrast, birther sites have LIED about what Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said, and posted three forged “Kenyan birth certificates” and a forged video and a forged “Columbia University student ID.” And they never told their readers that four officials in Hawaii including the former Republican governor (a strong supporter of Sarah Palin) have confirmed ALL the facts on Obama’s short form and long form birth certificates.

              RATIONAL people have a choice, between believing the National Review and the other experts and the fact that John McCain and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and the Republican Party do not believe that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. Or believing Swill.

            16. The National Review and numerous real document and software experts whom the birther sites will not show their readers (Now, I wonder why not?) all say that there is nothing wrong with Obama ‘s birth certificate and that layers are normal when a complex document is scanned, compressed and put into PDF and then that PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator. That fact is why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and Gingrich and Santorum and Ron Paul and Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann never questioned Obama’s birth certificate.

            17. Other than exposing that PDFs have layers, which I already explained that in the above posts, what did National Review contribute to the facts of the argument? What have you contributed? I’ve repeatedly asked whether you tried to replicate the anomalies on Obama’s birth certificate yourself. You’ve repeatedly avoided answering.

    12. OK, THIS IS HOW IT IS FOLKS. CRUZ’S FATHER= 100% CUBAN
      CRUZ’S MOTHER + !00% USA BORN
      NOW FOR THE RERAL NEWS. THEY MOVE TO CANADA. FATHER BECOMES A CANADIAN CITIZEN. MOTHER ALSO RENOUNCES HER USA CITENSHIP AND BECOMES A CANADIAN CITIZEN TO PLEASE DADDY. TED IS THEN BORN. TED IS THEN A CANADIAN CITIZEN, BECAUSE MOM NEVER WENT TO NEAREST EMBASSY AND REGISTERED TEDDY AS A IS CITIZEN. TEDDY MOVES TO TEXAS. TEDDY BEOMES A US SENATOR. (ILLEGALLY) THEN IN 2014 HE ALL OF SUDDEN RENOUNCES HIS CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP AND BECOMES A US CITIZEN. THAT ONLY GIVES HIM LESS THAN TWO (2) YEARS WORTH OF BEING A US CITIZEN TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. WITH ALL OF THAT SAID. THIS ALONE DISQUALIFIES HIM. IT IS NO WONDER HE LOCKED UP HIS HISTORY. HE DID HAVE ACTUALLY DUAL CITIZENSHIP FOR A WHILE WHEN GROWING UP, BECAUSE HIS MOTHER WAS AN AMERICAN, BUT HER FAILING TO REGISTER HIM IS THE DIS QUALIFIER. I CERTAINLY HOPE I HAVE MADE THIS AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.

      1. Vern, this fact pattern is a little different than I have read before. If Ted “… DID HAVE ACTUALLY DUAL CITIZENSHIP FOR A WHILE WHEN GROWING UP, BECAUSE HIS MOTHER WAS AN AMERICAN… ” as you say then that means someone made a decision regarding his status long ago and Ted got past the not registering part. It can’t be both ways. He couldn’t have been disqualified and a dual citizen, both.

      1. Well Tex, maybe that scrutiny will come after BO is no longer controlling the Justice Dept.! Maybe BO should have bought a house on Bimini (that has no extradition treaty with the US) rather than in Hawaii!

      2. Re: “Where was all this citizenship scrutiny for Hussein Obama ?”

        Answer: Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney ALL investigated the claim that Obama was born in a foreign country, and all found that there was nothing to that myth. Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been proven overwhelmingly. Not only has he shown both the short form and long form birth certificates of Hawaii, but the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor, a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s) repeatedly confirmed that they had sent them to Obama and that every single fact on the published copies is exactly the same as on what they sent him. And Obama’s birth in Hawaii has also been shown by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so for births IN HAWAII). Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother even had a PASSPORT in 1961 and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time, and even fewer women, EXTREMELY few, traveled abroad during the last few months of pregnancy because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet BOTH of those highly unlikely things would have had to have happened AND the officials of both parties in Hawaii would have had to have lied AND the birth notices on microfilm rolls in two libraries would have had to have been forged and slipped into those libraries replacing the old rolls without anyone noticing for Obama to have been born anywhere else than IN HAWAII.

        1. Try reading before replying. The birth cert issue is a red herring diversion. Obama’s father was not a citizen, therefore he is not a natural born citizen. One strike and you’re out.

          Nevertheless, the birth cert was clearly doctored. I sat down with unbiased Acrobat experts and looked at it with my own eyes. It’s manipulated and layered. Had it been legitimate, there would’ve been no reason not to re-release it in pure photographic or image format without manipulation and layers. You can see the manipulation yourself on youtube, download the “birth cert” and see the same thing on your own computer. Look who you trust on this: Clinton, Romney, McCain. Gun grabbing traitors, subversives, globalist RINOs.

          So, strike two: Hussein should’ve been disqualified for refusing to cough up a pure unmanipulated image. But guys like you enabled him to get away with it. Thanks for helping to destroy the USA.

          1. There was no manipulation, and layers are NORMAL when a complex document is scanned, compressed and put into PDF. That is how PDF works. Did you think that it only uses one layer like JPG?

      3. Tex, One Dr. Taitz Esq has been on Obama’s case for over 8 years. Look it up! She’s also on Cruz’s butt, as well.

    13. What’s good for the goose (Barry Hussein) is good for the gander (Ted Cruz). Demoncraps have set some terrible precedents these past 7+ years and the problem with precedents is they persist. Assuming The Cruzer’s eligibility is adjudicated all the way to the SCOTUS, would in not now end in a 4 4 tie? If so then we get the feral government gridlock we need because history shows US operational government in District of Corruption always amounts to growing its power and consuming our private resources, trampling freedom and liberty reserved to We The People. Guns and ammo will become the currency of the land.

    14. Korwin is correct… Almost! If we are to view eligibility as defined BY the Founders, then neither Cruz, Rubio, or Obama are eligible. Not so much because of Jus soli (Law of Soil), but because of Jus sanguinis (Law of Blood) and Coverture, which was the legal doctrine at the time of the Founders’ creation of this government. The legally binding doctrine of coverture insisted that a married woman’s rights are subsumed by her husband. Thus, the HUSBAND’s status only was considered in a married union. The husband can be a naturalized citizen who would NOT be eligible, but,his children WOULD become natural born citizens and thus would be eligible.

      If naturalized citizens (e.g. the Founders themselves) could be eligible, then they would NOT have included the very specific clause in the Constitution which stated that eligibility be for “Natural Born Citizens” OR anyone alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. If they had intended that naturalized citizens (e.g. Rubio, Cruz, Obama) vrs natural born citizens be eligible for the presidency, then they would NOT have deemed it necessary to include the passage in article II that excepted themselves.

    15. If you’re a U.S. Citizen, then you’re either “natural born”, meaning born a citizen, or you’re “naturalized”, meaning you were not born a citizen, but became one after birth through the naturalization process. As the author points out, it’s not really specified what “natural born” means, so does that mean you have to be born within the borders of America? If you’re born a U.S. Citizen outside of the U.S., you’re not “naturalized”. Ergo, you must be “natural born”. If not, there would need to be a whole new class of Americans created. John McCain was born outside of the United States, just as Ted Cruz was. Both were still born U.S. Citizens, however. As for the dual citizenship – you’re only no longer an American citizen if you’ve formally renounced your U.S. Citizenship at a U.S. consulate. Unless Ted did that, it matters not if he also held Canadian citizenship.

      Really, as pointed out, the allegations of marital infidelity are a much more pressing issue for Ted.

      1. If you’re born a U.S. Citizen outside of the U.S., you’re not “naturalized”. Ergo, you must be “natural born”.
        Sorry HP everything after your Ergo is wrong. If you are born outside of the jurisdiction of the United States and either one or both of your parents are US citizens, they you DERIVE your US citizenship from your US citizen parent, or both. You are a derivative citizen of the US. Not naturalized citizen and not Natural Born Citizen.
        Ted Cruz is a derivative citizen. But wouldn’t Ted Cruz make one heck of a great Supreme Court Justice!

        1. “But wouldn’t Ted Cruz make one heck of a great Supreme Court Justice!”

          No, he wouldn’t.

          Mr. Inside-Outski, “Conservative Constitutionalist” Ted Cruz has no problem misinterpreting and sabotaging the Constitution whenever it’s convenient for Ted Cruz and his globalist Goldman Sachs CFR pals.

          Cruz prioritized Cruz and political patronage over country, Constitution, and fellow citizens to lie for his “lawyers’ lawyer” apparatchik pal John Obamacare Roberts, claiming he was a “principled conservative”, etc. Cruz recruited J.O. Roberts for the Bush campaign Florida case and 5 years later led the charge to put him on the U.S. Supreme Court.
          (See http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz ) He knew JOR was no principled conservative. It was a political payoff.

          Cruz repeatedly lied when he took his constitutional oaths of office. He falsely swore to have renounced all foreign allegiance when in fact he remained a Canadian citizen until just one and a half years ago.

          Cruz told the same “principled conservative” lie for George W. Bush. (Anyone else notice how every “Republican” is now a “conservative”?)

          Cruz is lying about his eligibility to run for President and subverting the Constitution for his own benefit. Like Comrade Obama, Cruz refuses to release relevant papers.

          Cruz claimed to have read Comrade Obama’s entire secret executive “free trade” bill, then lied about it, claiming that Senator Sessions was wrong and that there was nothing unconstitutional about it and no Trojan Horse content.

          Cruz’s big-wheel Goldman Sachs wife worked for the globalist Council on Foreign Relations where she led a team of “security state” globalists, neo”cons”, open-immigration & pro-invasion lobbyists, Democrats, and left-racists (the National Council of La Raza; i.e., “The Race”) — to produce a white paper for Bush’s Orwellian nascent North American Union vehicle, “The North American Security and Prosperity Partnership”.
          http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

          Cruz, The Goldman Boy, is a constitutionalist outsider except when it’s inconvenient for Cruz or his establishment neo”con” globalist CFR “cheap labor” pals. Then he’s an unconstitutionalist insider. Paraphrasing The Dane in Miller’s Crossing:

          “You are so g-d-amn smart. Except you ain’t. I get you, smart guy. I know what you are. Straight as a corkscrew. Mr. Inside-Outski, like some g-d-amn Bolshevik picking up his orders from Neo-Con Central. Up is down. Black is white. Well, I think you’re half smart. I think you were straight with the globalists, I think you were queer with the Tea Party… and I think you’d sooner join a ladies’ league than turn on your insider patrons.”

          1. Take it easy Russ. Had you read any of my other posts I am sure that you would not have written that last paragraph.
            Miller’s Crossing… is that some case that I am not aware of?
            I am familiar with La Raza and I have opposed them in Immigration Court many times.
            I was referring to Ted Cruz’s huge pro-Second Amendment victory in Medellin v. Texas. And Scalia said that Ted Cruz was a brilliant attorney. I tell you what, I’ll research what you wrote and reevaluate Cruz, if you research what I have wrote, and reevaluate your facts.
            It will take a little time because I am going to the Wanenmacher Gun show in Tulsa at 0430 tomorrow.

            1. The last pp tweaks a line from a movie. Reminded me of Cruz (“Mr. Inside-Outski”). Did you think it was directed at you? It wasn’t.

    Comments are closed.