By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor.
I guess I will defer to Pete Seeger’s lyrical talent to explain through verse the disappearance of our friends pejoratively referred to as “birthers”: that is, those who assert President Obama was born in Kenya and as such is ineligible for office due to not being a “natural born citizen” as required by the US Constitution.
Now that Mr. Obama is in the final year of his presidency, one would think that Birthers would be legions to storm forward and attack presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, who by his own admission and clearly established facts, was–are you ready for this–born outside the USA!
It begs of course the question…Where have all the Birthers gone?
For many recent years, there has been a great debate in some circles, often voraciously, speculating as to President Obama’s place of birth. The situation was not exactly diffused by what many regarded as the White House’s dismissiveness in proving his birthplace which of course led to the belief Mr. Obama had something to hide. But the opposite is true with Mr. Cruz.
The entire premise of the Birther’s position was that if it could be proven Obama was born in Kenya, then it was up to Congress or the Supreme Court to cast away his presidency. Surprisingly, despite Mr. Cruz’ admission and all other readily obtainable evidences available to the Birther’s need for evidence, no great numbers are sounding the clarion calls. They have seemingly disappeared while at the verge of their own victory: advocating that foreign born presidents are in contravention to the Constitution. Ted Cruz should be as fish swimming in a barrel.
Ted Cruz was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to an American Citizen mother. He later emigrated to the United States. Sounds like a prima facie case for the Birthers! Yet, crickets is all we hear.
Where have all the Birthers Gone? Long time waiting.
There are many academics and legal professionals who draw a credible question as to what defines Natural Born Citizen as written in Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, we don’t need Sheriff Joe or various other investigators to determine the birth place of Mr. Cruz.
Could it be possible that much of this mantra of protecting the office of the president from foreign influences is, in actuality, due to domestic political agendas? Unthinkable! I would have thought the Birther movement might have been apolitical. Perhaps I am wrong.
Where are the these true believers? I want to see a conspiracy theory turn out to be fact. But if this is the case it surely is a setback for these folks in that one of their favorite Raisons d’être atrophied away with regard to Mr. Cruz. Sad that such things have come to an end.
Give me that old time conspiracy!
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
“The one thing Christians and Constitutionalists do have in common is a respect for authority that exists above man.”
How hilarious, considering Constitutionalists should have respect for the authority of the people, and not any other authority, particularly some faux deity.
As far as placing “god’s law” above the law written by humans, I’m sure the Taliban agree with you.
Squeeky,
The constitution presents a problem to progressives because it does provide an obstacle to their progressive worldview. The one thing Christians and Constitutionalists do have in common is a respect for authority that exists above man. Trying to interpret either or both demonstrates a humility you won’t find with progressives. They believe they are the supreme law of the land and that includes spiritually. Our culture is largely reflective of the progressive ideology and we are certainly not better for it.
Anyway, I’m happy to see you back. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
I don’t support Ted Cruz, but to bring up the birther issue regarding him is sheer hypocrisy. The fact is that we still now absolutely NOTHING about Obama’s real background. Obama’s failure to be forthright about his background speaks volumes. In stark contrast to Obama, we know a LOT about Cruz, like:
◾Graduated valedictorian in 1988 from Second Baptist High School
◾Graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1992
◾Graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995
◾1992 U.S. National Debate Champion representing Princeton
◾1995 World Debating Championship semi-finalist representing Harvard
◾Served a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, making him the first Hispanic ever to clerk for a Chief Justice of the United States
◾Served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to 2008, making him the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas, the youngest Solicitor General in the entire country and the longest tenure in Texas history
◾Partner at the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate litigation practice
◾Authored over 80 SCOTUS briefs and presented over 40 oral arguments before The Court
All we know about Obama is that he purportedly went to Columbia University, but nobody knows anything about it and somehow found his way to Harvard Law School on some affirmative action basis. We also know that he was a community organizer and was deeply in far leftist philosophy. That’s it. Obama was the first artificially created presidential candidate in history. Say what you will about Cruz, but at least you’re dealing with a real person with a real verifiable background, not just some New World Order creation.
@smrstrauss
You said that the literary agent said that he made a mistake. True, but that statement came AFTER the document floated to the surface. Now, I am not a Birther, of either sort. But try to think like a conspiracy theorist here. If you are a right leaning person, would you have any doubt that Obama, or Hillary would lie??? Of course not. If you are a left leaning person, would you have any doubt that Bush II, or Dick Cheney would lie? Again, of course not.
Sooo, none of us would have any problem believing that a President or other high level government official would lie, but you believe that no reasonable person could think that a literary agent would lie?
Personally, I think there are several possibilities:
1. The literary agent simply made a mistake;
2. Obama told the literary agent that he was born in Kenya;
3. Obama generally represented himself as being born in Kenya for some ulterior motive;
4. Obama was truly born in Kenya, and it was all a massive conspiracy;
5. The literary agent was a Republican operative, who thought Obama might one day run for the Presidency, and laid the groundwork for a massive Birther conspiracy;
etc. etc. etc.
My belief is that we can not know for sure how the bio came about, and don’t need to worry about it, because Obama coughed up his long form Birth Certificate, which provides a weight of evidence far superior to the bio.
But, like VietVet above, I am also truly curious what Obama is hiding in his school papers.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The birthers were racist idiots who believed an idiotic innuendo (started by the Clinton’s in the 2008 primary season) despite the idea that he was not born in Hawaii was absurd. They were correct, however, on the Constitution which has been clear from Day 1 about the necessity of being born on US soil and nowhere lese in order to be President. Those who make the absurd claim that simply being a citizen at birth is enough are either ignorant or simply ignoring the obvious intention of the founders for preventing some foreign born person representing one of the European empires from occupying the Presidency of the United States. Nothing has happened since the adoption of the Constitution to change that clear intent and the language of the Constitution makes it exceptionally clear that just being a citizen is not enough when it specifically points out that all those who are citizens at the time of adoption are eligible but afterward ONLY those who are natural born citizens shall be eligible. That meant then and means now “born on US soil”. No citizen born on foreign soil is eligible to be President. That is beyond question. The distinction made in the document between those who were citizens at the time of adoption vs those who come later is clear and means that anyone who serves as President must be born on US soil. Cruz is not eligible and cannot legally serve. Period.
@PhillyT
You said, “There is no such thing as a Constitutionalist. They are just a variation on the “true believer” who picks and chooses what they like and don’t like based on personal preferences and then try to pass it off as some kind of holy crusade.”
That was a very revealing statement that shows the nature of Liberals, today. They believe that there is no such things as “principles.” It is all some sort or personalized struggle to you guys. I have said the same thing about you all for quite a while, to wit:
I bet I have posted that blurb here a hundred times. Anyway, sooo, quit being hypocritical and pretending that you are making reasonable, logical arguments here. Just start saying, “But XYZ makes me feel good!” or “But ABC makes me feel bad!” Because that’s where your attitude about principles has gotten you to. This is the root of Liberals’ problems, and why they resort so often to name calling, ala “Racissss!”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Bob S. said: “obviously inauthentic birth certificate…”
Answer:
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.
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/
In short, Obama’s birth certificate is not “obviously inauthentic.” In fact, it is not inauthentic at all. It is completely and totally AUTHENTIC—and Obama really and truly was born in Hawaii. But birthers dream and desire that he was born in another country, and they are not shy of posting LIES in hopes that they’ll find a few GULLIBLE people who will believe them.
BTW, the bio blurb on this page saying that Obama was born in Kenya, was written by a literary agent who admitted to making a mistake. (When birthers post something AND show all the facts, such as the fact that the literary agent admitted to that MISTAKE, then you can start to believe that they do not mind misleading people.)
And, as far as Cruz’s eligibility to be president, he’s not imho. Why? Canada prohibited dual citizenship until well after Tailgunner Ted was born. There are reports that both of his parents were registered to vote in Canada when little Teddy was born.
Besides, Ted Cruz won’t get the nomination much less be elected.
The reason why Alexander Hamilton didn’t become president isn’t because he was born in another country. As a matter of fact, George Washington was born in the USA as the USA wasn’t founded when he was born. The provision that all candidates for president must be native born Americans couldn’t apply to anyone who signed the Declaration of Independence and/or approved the constitution.
Isaac….we once again find ourselves in a (rare) agreement.
You wrote, re masking incompetence, that “The best way to defend is to point the finger at someone else and keep pointing and bellowing”.
You and many other apologists for Obama have used that tactic to previously unseen levels.
To me, people who call themselves constitutionalists are right up their with the pious christians who claim that only THEY know the true meaning of the bible. For many of them, the books are pretty much the same. They don’t seem to really understand very much of the subject matter, and they pick and choose what they believe, ignoring what does not fit their world view.
Calling yourself a scholar or an expert on natural law or the Constitution or the bible does not make you one.
Good, interesting point, phillyT.
I tend to liken the Constitution to the bible (or any holy book), in that it is words set into a time and context, that some want to break out of that context and that time, and others want to lock in that historical and contextual box.
Ultimately however, who gets to decide what those words in that book meant, mean and will mean to people of then, now and tomorrow? And in that respect, a constitutionalist ought to be at best one able to carry the intent of that book of then into these times of now without losing the intent. The moment one gives himself to right to interpret the intent of people of different times as the true intent of those words, which unavoidably is framed according to one’s biases, it becomes problematic.
“There is no such thing as a Constitutionalist.”
Had you said “a few” phillyT I would have probably agreed with you. But to claim none, well that clearly demonstrates you wouldn’t know one if you saw one.
Hi Nicks!
Thanks! I could not believe it that a Birther thread came up here. Ahhhh. Those were the good old days! The blog battles! The name calling! The snark and sarcasm dripped like sap from a Vermont maple tree!
Friday, July 19, 2013
The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@IssacB
First, there are two distinct branches of Birthers. The first were people who had questions about where he was actually born. There was some basis for those questions, particularly since Obama waited about three years to present a long form birth certificate. In other words, your typical conspiracy theorist, like 911 Truthers, or the Trayvonazis, who are convinced that there was something spectacularly strange about Zimmerman popping .a cap into the guy who was banging his (George’s) head into the concrete sidewalk.
The second branch of Birthers, however, was and is, the dumbest of the dumb, and the stupidest of the stupid. They are the Birthers who believe that it takes two citizen parents to produce a “natural born citizen.” Even though the SCOTUS case of Wong Kin Ark (1898) clearly defined natural born citizenship for those born inside the United States. This group of Birthers are nothing but stubborn and thick-headed legal quacks.
Now as far as the first group, Obama did himself no favors when he was allowed his book publishers to produce this brief bio about him:
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/AE2113BE67D84D089015B1590922AA96.png
As far as the second group, they are the branch of Birthers who object to Cruz, because his father was a Cuban national. For several years I ran a blog called The Birther Think Tank. I even wrote The Birther Bible! I stayed after the second branch of Birthers like white on rice. Three years ago I wrote an article as if Cruz ran for the Presidency in 2020. Because I sure didn’t think he would in 2016!
Here is a link to where my BFF just reposted that article, where you can find a pdf of the legal “decision” in that case. For the legally inclined, I have covered the bases.
https://pansiesforplato.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/
For some reason, the link to just the pdf gets caught in the spam filter.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Girl Reporter: Thanks for the Wong Kin Ark (1898) reference. I hadn’t ever read it before.
In my opinion, while it’s certainly persuasive authority, Wong Kin Ark may be inconclusive as to whether the 14th Amendment’s “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . .,” applies to Article Il, sec. II’s “No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President . . .” It’s not exactly on point.
The Court was determining the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and not Article Il, sec. II’s eligibility clause. In other words, does the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship equate to a natural-born citizen in Article II. This question was not answered.
Take a look at the dissent (which incorrectly argues that even the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause requires birth in the country where both parents are citizens):
“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Book I, c.19, § 212.
And there’s lots of evidence that the Congress was looking to the Law of Nations in interpreting the Article II eligibility clause because of the fear of compromised allegiance.
Anyway, under Wong Kin Ark, even Rafael Eduado Cruz would be eligible to seek the presidency if he were a naturalized citizen. And I don’t know whether he has gone through that process or not.
No. Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not a natural-born citizen. Look it up. Nice try Ms. Fromme.
Richard Faust….I think it’s actually ” capicshe”…..I think Spenelli would have cotected this, had he been online.
I learned to respond “Vorree, no non posso” I think was the the best response.
If I have it right, that’s “I would like to, but I don’t”.
Being raised by a mother who parents immigrated from Italy, and babysat frequently by those immigrants themselves, that line served me welll.
Good stuff, my friend.
No. With all due respect, Ted Cruz is a statutorrily naturalized citizen. Ted is not natural-born. Capeche. Over and out. P.S. the true birther question about Barack Obama does not deal with his place of birth. The question deals with paternity. Frank Marshall Davis?
Squeeky, How about a Peter Paul and Mary song about “Where have all the birthers gone.” it’s great to have you back skewering the vapid liberals.
I see this post has triggered the BDS virus. Lots of words saying, “Republicans are bad.” What if what determines how long we live is how many words we use. We have a predetermined allocation of words, and when we use them up, we die.
Where are all the birthers gone? They are still here, as Isaac says, it was the Republican party that was driving the machine, along with its propaganda arm, Fox news. There is no political gain to be had in turning again itself and self-cannibalizing, eh? Why would they undermine their own candidate? And since the tea party has been co-opted and digested, who would do that dirty work?
Trump started when Cruz got too close or comfort, and will again when it gets hot in the kitchen again, but he knows that in order for the GOP machine to lay off him for a while, he has to obey some tacit rules, and the main one is lay off the Birther ish re Cruz. I would not be surprised it was one of the clauses Trump had to agree with for the semblance of support he gets from the GOP.
Additionally, though some of the Trumpets will raise the birther flag, many more won’t for no matter how much of an other Cruz is, he is not the other Obama was, Black, Muslim, Kenyan, uppity….
Additionally, for many, Rubio and Cruz are not that different, so whatever acceptance they give Rubio automatically and unavoidably rubs on Cruz, and Cruz gets what Carson had, the evangelical vote, which is mafia-like protection.
Cruz is an alien of a different sort.
Paul
You are consistent, I suppose. But, then again, so is rust, corrosion, rot, and all the rest of the ‘good stuff’ that are eroding what America was meant to be.
Before the French Revolution, those hapless oligarchs, royals, etcetera, in power made sure that table wine and tobacco were readily available and inexpensive. That tended to keep those who can’t make it past cheap gas, kind of blurred. It worked for a while. And, yes I know that it was predominantly the intelligencia that sprung that event on the oligarchs, priests, royals etc. and used the locals to work their wonders. So, come the revolution.
As for Scalia, he simply proved that one can be an incredible legal mechanic and a traitor to what America is all about, at the same time and because of his mastery of all things legal and obtuse, he served the oligarchs very well.
issac – If you want to pay more for your gas there are apps that tell you the price of gas in your area. You just need to find the ones with the most expensive gas. Personally, I find the least expensive.