Ted Cruz: It’s strange that Democrats seem to be allied with Donald Trump in his Birther attacks on me, isn’t it?

posted at 6:01 pm on January 12, 2016 by Allahpundit

I do believe the senator is suggesting that Democrats would rather face Trump than him in a general election. Which is highly debatable. If you were a Democrat, would you rather face an ideologue who’s convinced he can win an election solely by turning out the right or a charismatic centrist who dominates the media and who’s showed strong appeal among a certain type of Democrat?

Either way, the missiles are flying. Finally.

“I will say it is more than a little strange to see Donald relying on as authoritative a liberal, left wing, judicial activist Harvard Law professor who is a huge Hillary supporter,” Cruz told reporters in Hudson, New Hampshire, Tuesday. “It starts to make you think, gosh, why are Hillary’s strongest supporters backing Donald Trump?”…

“You know, the past couple of elections we saw the Democrats thrilled that they got the nominee they wanted to run against in the general election,” he said. “And it seems the Hillary folks are very eager to support Donald Trump and the attacks that are being tossed my direction.”

Yes, it’s passing strange to find a left-ish master troll like Donald Trump, who’s now taken to playing “Born in the USA” at his events to taunt Cruz, doing something super-trollish like touting an attack from the left on Cruz’s eligibility.

Here’s Tribe’s op-ed, which takes the Trump-ish line that no court will ever dare rule Cruz ineligible because of the circumstances of his birth (which is true) but that it’s a major problem anyway because fringe liberals will end up challenging his executive actions as president in court on grounds that he can’t constitutionally hold the office. Fringe righties have been doing that to Obama for years and it’s never proved a problem so I don’t know why it’d be a problem for Cruz. But Tribe doesn’t care about that; he’s making the point that a narrow, originalist reading of the Constitution, which Cruz himself holds, would ironically place Cruz in greater legal jeopardy here than an expansive liberal reading of the “natural-born” clause would. (See this op-ed, by another law prof, arguing that Cruz is ineligible in the originalist view.) And Trump, being Trump, is happy to exploit that.

And if you believe PPP, it may be working. Trump 28, Cruz 26 in Iowa for now — with a bigger lead on the way, perhaps.

The poll finds that the ‘birther issue’ has the potential to really hurt Ted Cruz. Only 32% of Iowa Republicans think someone born in another country should be allowed to serve as President, to 47% who think such a person shouldn’t be allowed to serve as President. Among that segment of the Republican electorate who don’t think someone foreign born should be able to be President, Trump is crushing Cruz 40/14.

Despite all the attention to this issue in the last week, still only 46% of Iowa Republicans are aware that Cruz was not born in the United States. In fact, there are more GOP voters in the state who think Cruz (34%) was born in the United States than think Barack Obama (28%) was. Donald Trump knows what he’s doing when he repeatedly brings up this issue- 36% of Cruz voters aren’t aware yet that he wasn’t born in the United States, and 24% of Cruz voters say someone born outside the country shouldn’t be allowed to be President. So this issue has the potential to be a difference maker with the race persistently so close in Iowa. The good news for Cruz is that when informed, 65% of Iowa Republicans say it makes no difference to them that he was born in Canada- but 24% saying less likely could be crucial in a margin of error race.

Thirty-six percent of Trump’s voters, whom Cruz is trying to woo, also erroneously believe Cruz was born in the United States. Earlier this afternoon, I asked for crosstabs showing how Trump’s and Cruz’s own voters feel about the eligibility issue. PPP has the answer. Note the results among Trump’s fans, specifically.

p11

The more that Iowa becomes a two-man race, the more pressure lukewarm supporters of other candidates will feel to ditch their guy and choose between Trump and Cruz to try to affect the outcome. How is the Birther issue likely to play with them?

p2

Note the numbers among Huckabee and Santorum fans particularly. Gulp.

If you missed it in Headlines earlier, read this RCP story on a mysterious phone call some Iowa voters have gotten lately asking the recipient if he’d be more or less likely to support Donald Trump if he knew that Trump has said he’s never asked God for forgiveness, that he supports eminent domain and used to support single-payer health care, that he’s “a New York liberal pretending to have conservative values,” and so on. That sounds like a campaign trying out attack lines in preparation of a big ad barrage to come. Which campaign could it be?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

I learned a lot from the legal back-and-forth on this Cruz eligibility issue, from this and other threads, but this is a political decision because voters do not have the time or expertise to adjudicate the issue. This is what Paul and Trump are saying. It should never have been in front of them. But it is.

It’s not strange at all that Democrats want to exploit this. It was completely predictable. If Cruz moves forward, the target is still on his back (pace all the lawyers who have definitively ruled on this issue in the privacy of their chamber). Not sure he can resolve it.

virgo on January 12, 2016 at 11:38 PM

Thanks for finally tell us what you really believe.

TBSchemer on January 12, 2016 at 11:33 PM

ing. Telling.

Man, my brain doesn’t work right after chemo. Still, it would take much harder stuff than that to make me dumb enough to vote for Trump.

TBSchemer on January 12, 2016 at 11:38 PM

Ted Cruz: It’s strange that Democrats seem to be allied with Donald Trump in his Birther attacks on me, isn’t it?

No, with Hillary going in the tank they turn to the next liberal in line…Trump.

Raising taxes, increasing ObamaCare, continued funding of Planned Parenthood, more federal agencies…it makes sense.

The closet liberals, who have called themselves Republican’s, are out of the closet…

right2bright on January 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM

I wasn’t thinking anything of this issue, I considered Cruz eligible to run for potus, but now….Cruz is not eligible to receive my vote. Good job Ted, you lose.

Andy__B on January 12, 2016 at 11:43 PM

searcher on January 12, 2016 at 10:53 PM

I wonder who on earth this Asians Girl is…

If you can’t tell your “L”s from your “i”s then I can’t take you seriously…

Aslans Girl on January 13, 2016 at 12:06 AM

Warning to all women: If you’re pregnant, don’t go on vacation out of the country. Should you go into early labor, your child will never be able to run for President. So saith that notable legal scholar, The Donald.

IndieDogg on January 12, 2016 at 11:27 PM

Once again, it’s about original intent. In the 18th century, it took weeks and months to travel from one country to another. If a man and wife are in western Canada having a baby, it’s assumed the parents meant for the child to be a Canadian, and so the child could not be a natural born American.

You would need a Constitutional Amendment to update it.

cimbri on January 13, 2016 at 12:12 AM

I see you came back over to HA from Storm Front.

Tater Salad on January 12, 2016 at 11:20 PM

But also Trump. And only a fascist would even tolerate Trump.

TBSchemer on January 12, 2016 at 11:23 PM

Two incredible fools, with zero awareness of it. Keep dancing, my losers.

Schadenfreude on January 13, 2016 at 12:21 AM

Man, my brain doesn’t work right after chemo. Still, it would take much harder stuff than that to make me dumb enough to vote for Trump.

TBSchemer on January 12, 2016 at 11:38 PM

No one should have to suffer through that. Focus on your health and do get well Schemer. Politics is nothing, comparably.

Schadenfreude on January 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM

Natural born citizenship requirement should be declared officially dead after Obama. It’s what the Dems, GOP, media (lib & conservative) & “sophisticated” righties everywhere demanded. So be it. If I were Cruz I’d have some fun w/it. Photoshop a Hawaii Certificate Of Live Birth and post it on my website. Make my father “Pablo Cruz”, my mother “Penelope Cruz”, attending physician “Jonathan Quayle Higgins III”

One32ndHekawi on January 13, 2016 at 12:37 AM


Wrong.The term natural born is not explained further in the Constitution so we have to try and divine their intent by writings or, LAWS.

For example, lets say The VERY FIRST CONGRESS of the United States,ONE YEAR and one year only passed a law EXPLAINING/FURTHER DEFINING boundaries of the exact term “natural born”,which included Cruz’s situation. The congress contained many of the founders who were all still alive.

And lets say that five years later, they discovered they did not have that power and took away the “natural born” part of their original phrase and just left citizen. And they then REPEALED THAT LAW.

Congress can’t grant someone NBC status.”

Congress WASNT GRANTING ANYTHING half wit. Congress and a co founding father who was was offered kingship but turned it down to be a simple President, EXPLAINED THE INTENT OF 2 WORDS THAT HAD NO FURTHER EXPLANATION

The 1795 law, DID NOT CHANGE THAT, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ADDRESS IT AT ALL.

If the had been the issue,as a violation of the constitution, they would have said so, and not let it just hang out there like a wet pookie lol.

That would be a big deal (granting wrongful NBC status).especially back then.

It’s the type of thing you’d address explicitly in words

Add to that, if that zero chance a court will ever disqualify him,and VERY FEW will even have standing. If Trump is too afraid to face him like a man, he should sue him and prove it. He may have standing

Besides when Cruz was born the immigration law EXPLAINING NOT REWRITING the constitution made it so even Cruz’s dad didnt have to be a resident, (He was a green card holder)

Game.Set.Match

Charliecrown on January 12, 2016 at 8:20 PM

Thanks for acknowledging my victory!

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 8:40 PM

Lol Pathetic

Charliecrown on January 13, 2016 at 1:07 AM

My point is, right now the political establishment of the Republican Party is more aligned against Cruz than they are Trump.
camtheman7 on January 12, 2016 at 8:23 PM

This in before the SOTU. Did you ever think you’d see the GOP rebuttal to a sitting Democrat president directed at their party’s frontrunner? The day Iran took 10 more American hostages, no less. Unbelievable.

ezspirit on January 13, 2016 at 1:36 AM

Charliecrown on January 12, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Three times and counting? Post it a fourth and maybe you’ll finally teach us all a lesson… LOL!

Instead of posting in an echo chamber, why doncha read Mashup’s post to you that the law you are citing is no longer the law? That is was amended in 1795 and dropped the “natural born” clause. Geraldo gets this. How stupid are you to be beaten by Geraldo of all people?!

Aslans Girl on January 12, 2016 at 7:51 PM

Here’s the relevant text of the 1790 Naturalization Act:

And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And 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:

Here’s the relevant text of the 1795 Naturalization Act:

And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:

Both are nearly identical. Both address two classes of people:
1) Minor children whose parents become naturalized citizens are naturalized at the same time. These are naturalized citizens, not born citizens
2) The children of citizens born outside the US. These are citizens at the time of birth, and never go through a naturalization process.

In the 1790 act, one sentence says the first group of people are considered as citizens, while the second sentence says the second group of people are considered natural born citizens.

In the 1795 act, there is only one sentence covering both groups of people, and it says both groups of people are considered citizens.

Those seizing on the absence of “natural born” in the 1795 act assert it’s absent because it’s no longer true. But the more likely reason is that putting “natural born” in front of citizens in the 1795 act would have declared that both groups of people were natural born citizens. Clearly, the first group are not citizens at the time of birth, but are naturalized later, so “natural born” would have been inaccurate.

If that’s not quite clear, try putting the phrase in the 1795 act and see what it would have said.

And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States:

If the 1795 act had said natural born, then it would have meant that minor children of parents who were naturalized would have been considered natural born citizens. So it’s obvious why “natural born” could not be put in front of citizens without completely changing the law.

And we see that the Supreme Court decision Minor v. Happersett did not interpret the absence of “natural born” to mean that children born to American citizens overseas were no longer natural born citizens.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.

Per the Supreme Court, children of American citizens born abroad were considered natural born citizens starting in 1790, and continuing from there. and in 1855, that provision was extended even further to state that it was not necessary for both parents to be citizens in order for the child to be a citizen born.

You’re either a citizen by birth, or a citizen by naturalization. Cruz was a citizen at birth.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 13, 2016 at 1:45 AM

Interesting that all these Cruzers keep pointing to definitions of citizenship in Acts pertaining to Naturalization.

Joseph K on January 12, 2016 at 7:50 PM

OH I KNOW THIS!

It has something to do with getting citizenship after the fact…

Something another category of citizen doesn’t need…

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 8:01 PM

Did Cruz get citizenship after being born, or at birth?

If at birth, then he is not a naturalized citizen.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 13, 2016 at 2:03 AM

“No, I don’t intend to send jack boots to knock on your door and every door in America, that’s not the way we enforce the law for any crime,”

He’s calling ICE agents in Trump’s deportation plan jack boots, AKA fascists/Nazis.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 7:23 PM

This is a lame line of attack. He said he would not send any jack boots door to door, which is of course quite literally true. At no point did he imply that ICE agents were jack boots. He also said, “that’s not the way we enforce the law for any crime.”

It seems obvious that he was shooting down the idea that immigration reform requires creating a police state where “jack boots” roam door to door checking out everybody’s immigration status. As in all law enforcement, there would have to be reasonable cause. There will not be Gestapo stopping people in the streets like a WW2 movie and saying, “Your papers, please.”

Neither would there be such a thing under Trump’s immigration reform.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 13, 2016 at 2:13 AM

I don’t give a flying fig about Cruz’s citizenship question.
What I do care about is the fact that Cruz wants to increase the issuance of H1B visas by 500%, voted for Obamatrade, handed out teddy bears to illegal invaders with that loony tune Beck and only started being “against” amnesty after he saw the response Trump got.
Plus — I’m not really a fan of the fact that his wife works for globalist Goldman Sachs.

I realize that Cruz supporters have their hearts in the right place, but they need to get their heads out of the sand — if the above ^^^ acts are those of a “true conservative,” I’m proud not to be one.

Dark Star on January 13, 2016 at 2:24 AM

Pat Buchanan:

“Trump is sui generis, unlike any candidate of recent times. And his success is attributable not only to his stance on issues, but to his persona, his defiance of political correctness, his relish of political combat with all comers, his ‘damn the torpedos’ charging in frontally where others refuse to tread, as in that full retaliatory response to Hillary Clinton’s stab at him for having a ‘penchant for sexism.’ Trump shut her down. These clashes have elated a party base that is sick unto death of politicians who never fight.”

http://trumpstump2016.com/2016/01/12/thejoe/pat-buchanan-says-trump-is-the-future/

anotherJoe on January 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM

There’s a problem with that poll, it says “another country” but should say “Canada.” Around 20% of Americans think Canada is a U.S. state.

This only helps Cruz. The attack is false, and makes Cruz a martyr.

Cruz has a massive war chest that he’s barely tapped. He’s been gaining voters through retail politics. Those votes will be durable.

Going to be a heck of a couple weeks here.

TallDave on January 13, 2016 at 5:18 AM

Surprising? Trump has been warning you that the Democrats would make an issue of your eligibility.Cruz is just another Harvard educated moron!

redware on January 13, 2016 at 7:23 AM

The moment the name “Cruz” appears on a primary ballot, we’ll see if somebody files a challenge, won’t we?

Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

M240H on January 13, 2016 at 7:54 AM

Trump aligned himself with the democrats. He knows they love an autocrat/dictator and he’s their guy.

Lee Jan on January 13, 2016 at 8:20 AM

I don’t give a flying fig about Cruz’s citizenship question.
What I do care about is the fact that Cruz wants to increase the issuance of H1B visas by 500%, voted for Obamatrade, handed out teddy bears to illegal invaders with that loony tune Beck and only started being “against” amnesty after he saw the response Trump got.
Plus — I’m not really a fan of the fact that his wife works for globalist Goldman Sachs.

I realize that Cruz supporters have their hearts in the right place, but they need to get their heads out of the sand — if the above ^^^ acts are those of a “true conservative,” I’m proud not to be one.

Dark Star on January 13, 2016 at 2:24 AM

From Breitbart

A Cruz spokesperson announced to The Blaze Thursday that Cruz would be “glad to join Glenn Beck” in McAllen, Texas to “provide some relief from the suffering this administration is causing.”

Cruz’s spokesperson, Catherine Frazier, reiterated to Breitbart News that “from day one, Sen. Cruz has been leading the charge to stop President Obama’s lawlessness, which is the direct cause of this humanitarian crisis.” She said Cruz argues that, at the same time, “these young children are very real victims of the President’s promise of amnesty–because of it, they have been subjected to horrific physical and sexual abuse from international drug cartels smuggling them into the country.”

M240H on January 13, 2016 at 8:37 AM

I wonder who on earth this Asians Girl is…

If you can’t tell your “L”s from your “i”s then I can’t take you seriously…

Aslans Girl on January 13, 2016 at 12:06 AM

My sincerest apologies. To these 67 year old eyeballs it sure looks like “Asians Girl”. Again, apologies Aslans Girl. I guess I’m gonna need a bigger font.

rotorjoe on January 13, 2016 at 8:37 AM

I don’t give a flying fig about Cruz’s citizenship question.
What I do care about is the fact that Cruz wants to increase the issuance of H1B visas by 500%, voted for Obamatrade, handed out teddy bears to illegal invaders with that loony tune Beck and only started being “against” amnesty after he saw the response Trump got.
Plus — I’m not really a fan of the fact that his wife works for globalist Goldman Sachs.

I realize that Cruz supporters have their hearts in the right place, but they need to get their heads out of the sand — if the above ^^^ acts are those of a “true conservative,” I’m proud not to be one.

Dark Star on January 13, 2016 at 2:24 AM

It would really help if you don’t lie. From this very website in November …

That was a dilemma for Cruz, who’s always tempered his criticism of illegal immigration with enthusiasm for legal immigration. What would he do about H-1B visas as a candidate?

That question has now been answered:

Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program: Initiate an immediate 180-day investigation and audit of the H-1B visa program and enact fundamental reforms of this program to ensure that it protects American workers. In recent months, more and more reports have become public of companies replacing American workers with cheaper foreign workers, contrary to the stated intent of the H-1B visa program. This will stop, and the H1-B program will be suspended until we can be certain that the program is no longer being abused.

That’s not all. He also wants, among other things, more rigorous standards for applying for the visas — requiring foreign applicants to hold advanced degrees, for starters, enforcing stricter accreditation requirements for those degrees, and mandating a “cool off” period for companies that have laid off an American worker before they can access the H-1B system.

M240H on January 13, 2016 at 8:40 AM

I don’t give a flying fig about Cruz’s citizenship question.
What I do care about is the fact that Cruz wants to increase the issuance of H1B visas by 500%, voted for Obamatrade, handed out teddy bears to illegal invaders with that loony tune Beck and only started being “against” amnesty after he saw the response Trump got.
Plus — I’m not really a fan of the fact that his wife works for globalist Goldman Sachs.

I realize that Cruz supporters have their hearts in the right place, but they need to get their heads out of the sand — if the above ^^^ acts are those of a “true conservative,” I’m proud not to be one.

Dark Star on January 13, 2016 at 2:24 AM

As for your “globalist” crap- aren’t you the clown that claims to live and work in China? Yeah, f*ck you; it is the twenty-first century, isn’t it?

M240H on January 13, 2016 at 8:43 AM

M240H on January 13, 2016 at 8:37 AM

So you’re supportive of Mr. Cruz aiding illegal aliens. “Yeah, f*ck you” is not a retort. Especially since he’s not Dark Current, you idiot.

NWConservative on January 13, 2016 at 8:55 AM

This is a lame line of attack. He said he would not send any jack boots door to door, which is of course quite literally true. At no point did he imply that ICE agents were jack boots.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 13, 2016 at 2:13 AM

The only people doing interior immigration enforcement is ICE, so yeah, he did.

Those jack booted thugs at ICE will be knocking on your door without a warrant!!!1!!11!

Thanks Hillary Cruz.

NWConservative on January 13, 2016 at 9:00 AM

Let’s just get this over with. Stop the friendly fire…

Trump/Cruz 2016

Fallon on January 13, 2016 at 9:17 AM

Let’s just get this over with. Stop the friendly fire…

Trump/Cruz 2016

Fallon on January 13, 2016 at 9:17 AM

I don’t think that would ever happen. I suspect Cruz thinks Trump is an asshat and has been playing nice in hopes of assuming his support when/if Trump were to fade. That strategy wasn’t ever going to work and now he is going have to go after Trump.

Tater Salad on January 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM

So you’re supportive of Mr. Cruz aiding illegal aliens. “Yeah, f*ck you” is not a retort. Especially since he’s not Dark Current, you idiot.

NWConservative on January 13, 2016 at 8:55 AM

Adjust your tinfoil, march right out that front door, and GFY, you birther nutjob.

M240H on January 13, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Let’s just get this over with. Stop the friendly fire…

Trump/Cruz 2016

Fallon on January 13, 2016 at 9:17 AM

Hell no. Trump dooms any ticket he’s on.

TBSchemer on January 13, 2016 at 9:34 AM

No one should have to suffer through that. Focus on your health and do get well Schemer. Politics is nothing, comparably.

Schadenfreude on January 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM

Arguing politics is pretty much all I can do when I’m really sick. I think you generally see less of me here on my good days, because then I’m usually working on more productive things.

TBSchemer on January 13, 2016 at 9:37 AM

Another 400+ post thread on this?

Was Ted Cruz required to go through a naturalization process in order to attain full citizenship status?

If not, then what are we even talking about?

The Schaef on January 13, 2016 at 9:45 AM

Of course, taking down Cruz really destroys the GOP’s pretense that they support legal immigration, for they find it selectively punishable–even against offspring….to be relegated to a limited status.
Nit-picking laws against Cruz while ignoring the assault on the entire constitution, hardly shows enough integrity deserving to be rewarding the GOPe with my vote.

Don L on January 13, 2016 at 9:45 AM

You still got my vote Cruz! I’m sticking with you like you stuck with that filibuster of ObamaCare! The best conservative running.

Dollayo on January 13, 2016 at 10:12 AM

I realize that Cruz supporters have their hearts in the right place, but they need to get their heads out of the sand — if the above ^^^ acts are those of a “true conservative,” I’m proud not to be one.

Dark Star on January 13, 2016 at 2:24 AM

Opinions can differ on legal mechanisms for immigration, and opinions can change. But Trump’s stated policy right now is to grant “the good ones,” i.e. illegal aliens who don’t have a criminal record, amnesty. That is a circumvention of legal mechanisms which has been done before, and we know how well that worked.

Nobody makes issue of Trump’s old opinions on things much, mostly because they’re old. In a world of economic refugees with jihadist impulses and an aggressive, focused Islamic threat, people can and should reformulate their legal and illegal immigration platform to address the threat.

Immolate on January 13, 2016 at 10:45 AM

I don’t think that would ever happen. I suspect Cruz thinks Trump is an asshat and has been playing nice in hopes of assuming his support when/if Trump were to fade. That strategy wasn’t ever going to work and now he is going have to go after Trump.

Tater Salad on January 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM

I assume Cruz thinks Trump is a means to an end. Trump is going to win the nomination unless he successfully finds a way to commit political suicide, a feat he hasn’t managed to accomplish in spite of concerted effort.

In addition to the opportunity for a VP slot, which I can’t say whether Cruz is interested but assume he is, Trump also breaks a log jam in the body politic that makes it possible for Cruz to achieve a level of influence that the current one-party system won’t permit, maybe.

This assumes that Trump doesn’t simply adopt the corruption that permeates DC for his own ends, which isn’t a safe assumption. Trump has harnessed corrupt systems for personal success in the past. It is difficult not to apply the successful strategies you’ve used in the past to future endeavors.

Immolate on January 13, 2016 at 10:57 AM

By the way, if Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen of the U.S., he’s not qualified to serve in the U.S. Senate. He has never been “naturalized” so, if the numb skulls who continue to suggest that the child of a citizen isn’t a citizen if they’re born to a mother on vacation in Cabo, then Cruz isn’t a citizen at all and is, therefore, unqualified to serve in the Senate. When can we expect the lawsuit from a good Texas Democrat to have him removed?

What is that…. crickets?

IndieDogg on January 13, 2016 at 1:32 PM

It’s not defined in the Constitution, neither is the definition of a citizen. It was common knowledge at the time the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Which is why the founders EXEMPTED themselves and everyone else in the USA at the time from not qualifying, being foreign born of non citizen parents.

Which is why they only allowed Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. A NBC doesn’t need an act of Congress to be a citizen. If you have to look up a statute to give you your status, you. are. not. a. natural. born. citizen.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 8:57 PM

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided
, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
Provided
, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
–8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

Bravesbill on January 13, 2016 at 1:48 PM

Adjust your tinfoil, march right out that front door, and GFY, you birther nutjob.

M240H on January 13, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Was that also directed to Dark Current? You seem to have trouble picking who you’re going to attack.

It’s probably because you’re an idiot.

NWConservative on January 13, 2016 at 7:56 PM

Bravesbill on January 13, 2016 at 1:48 PM

Did you not read anything you copy pasted here or the post you’re replying to?

It’s not defined in the Constitution, neither is the definition of a citizen. It was common knowledge at the time the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Which is why the founders EXEMPTED themselves and everyone else in the USA at the time from not qualifying, being foreign born of non citizen parents.

Which is why they only allowed Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. A NBC doesn’t need an act of Congress to be a citizen. If you have to look up a statute to give you your status, you. are. not. a. natural. born. citizen.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 8:57 PM

NWConservative on January 13, 2016 at 8:08 PM

Trump: I have it on good authority that Cruz is not a citizen!

Judge: Yes, he is.

Trump: I have it on good authority that Cruz’s cowboy boots were made in Matamoros!

Knott Buyinit on January 13, 2016 at 8:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5