Where Have All The Birthers Gone? Cruz Is Running

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor.

Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressI 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.

peter-paul-and-maryThe 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.

187 thoughts on “Where Have All The Birthers Gone? Cruz Is Running”

  1. @Smrstrauss

    Hmmm. Well listen to Bill Ayers himself CONFESS ADMIT SAY AFFIRMATIVELY STATE that he wrotes Dreams of my Father:


    He later says he was just kidding, but once again, to a conspiracy theorist type mentality, this is evidence.

    What if this was Dick Cheney, and he said, “Sure, we blew up the twin towers. Our companies needed a war to make us some money!” and then he later came back and said, “I was just being sarcastic…” I bet Democrats would be running the tape today to make Republicans look bad.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. Paul C. Shulte also said: ” BTW, Bill Ayers has admitted to writing his book, Dreams of My Father.”

    THAT, Mr. Schulte, is A LIE.

    1. smrstrauss – William Ayers is on videotape not only admitting writing Obama’s bio, but moaning that he was not getting any royalties.

  3. Re: Paul C. Schulte said that ALL bios are sent to the author to be proofed.

    Answer: That is the way that the world is SUPPOSED to work. As for it always happening, obviously it doesn’t.

    In fact, the literary agent said that SHE had made the mistake and that she did NOT send it to him to check. That can be considered two mistakes—but people do indeed make mistakes, particularly people who do not have much experience at the job.

    In order for you to believe that Obama checked the bio, you either have to believe that Obama was born in Kenya (which is nutty given that the Kenyan government says he wasn’t and only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya, and there is no evidence that his mother even had a passport and very very few pregnant women traveled abroad in those days due to the risk of stillbirths). Or, you have to believe that for some unknown motive, Obama lied.

    Now, since Obam said in his interview with the New York Times in 1990 that he was born in HAWAII, and since he actually said in his published book “Dreams” in 1995 that he was born in HAWAII, the notion that he would lie in an author’s bio blurb in 1991 has little to support it. The only possible motive for such a lie is the notion that a Kenyan-born author would sell more books than a US-born author—-but what evidence is there that such a thing is really true?

    Moreover, we know that it was easy to make a mistake on the matter since a man named Barack Hussein Obama actually WAS born in Kenya—Barack Hussein Obama I (who was just known as Barack Hussein Obama until Obama was born, of course). So the literary agent merely had to see in Obama’s unpublished bio, “Journeys in Black and White” that a man called Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, and naturally she thought that it was the author—-but, of course it wasn’t. Then she SHOULD have checked, but she didn’t.

    BTW, the MOTIVE to insist that the literary agent could not have made a mistake and must be lying and the notion that literary agents ALWAYS send the bios to authors to check and never forget to do so, is the same as caused birther sites to show three forged “Kenyan birth certificates” and to lie and say that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (when in fact she said that he was born IN HAWAII in three interviews).

    1. smrstrauss – what make you think the literary agent would not lie about a book that was already ghost written by a terrorist. The fix was in.

  4. I have to agree with Po (shock!) that nobody is going to care as much about Cruz’s Canadian birth as much as Obama’s wherever birth. For the simple reason that while we may not agree with Cruz politically, we know who he is, and we don’t perceive Canadians or Cuban exiles or Christians as a threat to national security. But when you have an African Muslim and an American leftist giving birth to a child; raising him in Indonesia by another Muslim (step-father), attending a Muslim school, and later taking up with radical leftists in Chicago, yes it does make people uneasy. And he certainly didn’t help matters by being so cagey about his birth.

    Personally, I think Obama was born in Hawaii. I don’t believe a pregnant woman would go to Kenya, or any other impoverished country, to deliver her child. What if something went wrong and she or the baby needed emergency medical care? No ICU in Kenya. Even if she were young and naive enough to contemplate such an adventure, her mother would have talked her out of it. Plus there’s the fact that Obama’s father already had a wife and kids in Kenya. It would be a little ackward showing up with his white pregnant teen hippy chick girlfriend from America. And moreover, there’s no indication that Obama’s father had much interest in him. He was a student at the Univ of Hawaii, and abandoned O and his mother when he got accepted at Harvard to study economics. He could have taken them to Cambridge with him, but didn’t. O later tracked down his father’s family to discover his “roots,” but that’s about it as far as the family connection goes.

    1. Philly T………I don’t intend to spend hours untangling your distortions, but let’s take a look at a couple of your blindly partisan rant re Bush 43.
      “.., he let 9-11 happen on his watch”. Bush was in office less than 8 months when the SECOND Attack on the World Trade Center happened.
      The first WTC attack was under “Clinton’s watch”, and came close to inflicting the same carnage as the 9-11 attack.
      Bin Laden’s name surfaced in that investigation….he was an un indicted co-conspirator….but he was not generally known to the public.
      His public call for ‘good” Muslims” to kill Americans came at about the same time he was behind the 2 African Embassy bombings…..1998, well before he left office in 2001.
      The Cole bommbing was in 2000, I think, closer to the end of the Clinton administration.
      Bin Laden and Al Qued clearly were a serious, growing menance for years during Clinton ‘s 8 years in office.
      Clinton ineffective lobbed a few cruise missles at or toward Bin Laden’s bases in Afghanistan; his most aggressive, intensive military response to this growing menace was to bomb the hell out of Serbia.
      On the “.. pissed away a surplus and turned it into a huge deficit”, it’s a good that that W’s successor did such a wonderful job adding c.7.5 $Trillion to the debt v. the c4,2 $Trillion added under Bush 43. Sen. Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when he found a 450 $ Billion deficit unacceptable.
      He soon found several Trillion$ + deficits quite acceptable.
      I know, I know….it was all Bush 43’s fault. That canard is as predictable and consistent as the sunrise and sunset.
      The fact is that NEITHER Bush 43 nor Obama had the favorable tailwinds Clintin had when he became President in 1993.
      These favorable conditions were truly unique…..the end of the Cold War and a very successful Gulf War I both meant a dramatic reduction in defense spending.
      There was a “thank you for your service, now hit the bricks” reduction in size of the military, military projects, overall defense spending.
      The economy was in the early stages of a strong recovery …..too late to help Bush 41, especially since the unenployment rate lags the GDP growth recovery.
      I think 4th Q. 1992 GDP growth was about 6%. Had that recovery from a relatively mild recession happened 6-12 months earlier, it probably would have helped Bush 41.
      Bush 41 raised taxes and this was another advantage to Clinton in a. Setting a path to lowering the deficits and B. Clinton raising taxes again.
      Partisan accusations are fairly easy to make, and keep parroting ad nauseum.
      A fairly objective, analytical review is, by its nature, more time-consuming than one sentence distortions.

  5. Paul,
    You and I finally agree on something. I think George W. was probably dyslexic. I think he also showed signs of the effects of long-term alcohol and cocaine abuse. He was undoubtedly a dry-drunk.

    I only make fun of him because of what a terrible president he was, how he let 911 happen on his watch, how he pissed away a surplus and turned it into a huge deficit, how he led us into two unnecessary wars and made no attempt to pay for them in any way. and how he almost completely ruined our, and the world’s economy. Oh and how he let people like Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other neo-cons run the show with their horrible never-right-not-even-once philosophy. Other than that, he seemed like a nice guy, you know, the kind you’d want to have a beer with.

    Just kidding about the beer. He was a dry drunk and would never have a beer.

    1. phillyT – you really need to look up the definition of ‘dry drunk.’ You are using the phrase incorrectly.

  6. Squeeky:

    Haha. Yes, it probably is, since his father was a postman. Who always rang twice. And I’m sure they ate Rice Czechs for breakfast.

  7. Elmer Fudd:

    I don’t agree that Cruz looks Hispanic. When I was a kid in CA I thought all Mexicans looked like American Indians. After visiting Mexico I realized that the Mexicans who came to the U.S. to work in the fields were not necessarily reflective of all Mexicans. You go to Mexico and will see that the middle-class shopkeepers are fairly European looking, or at least mixed. The poor Mexicans begging from the tourists are Indians. The upper-class Mexicans look 100% European. And I have seen enough Cubans to know that they can be white or Indian or black or any mixed race variation. Cruz doesn’t look anything like Rubio. And neither looks like Fidel Castro. Maybe Cruz looks like his 1/8 Sicilian ancestors?

  8. @Tin

    You said, “Kasich’s mother is Croatian and his father is Czech.”

    Sooo, the male is in the Czech???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  9. Regarding Obama’s college and law school transcripts, it seems to me that if he graduated with honors, he would have readily released them. If I had graduated magna or summa or way-to-go cum laude from Harvard Law, I would be posting my transcripts on this blog right now! The only politicians who withhold their academic records are those who were poor or mediocre students. And this is especially true for someone who was, or presumably was, an affirmative action admittee. If he had done well, he would have released his transcripts to show the world that an AA student can compete academically, and to set an example for other black students. Clarence Thomas has acknowledged that he was a “middle of the class” student at Yale Law. Which really, isn’t bad at all. So why can’t Obama own up?

  10. @PaulCS

    FWIW, the oh so brilliant Liberals still poke fun at Quayle for misspelling potato like 24 years ago, but have you ever see them tease Obama for getting the whole danged YEAR wrong in England??? It was 2011, and he dated the visitor’s book as 2008. Hmmm.


    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    PS: ‘member that pot discussion on the other thread???

    1. Squeeky……some gaffes are more “reportable” than others.
      E.G., Obama’s comment about our “57 states”. If Quayle had said that, I can just about guarantee 10× the coverage.
      I think it was Al Gore who got separated from the Sectet Service once, and got lost in the woods.
      Minimal coverage.
      I think Gore was also the one who released a condor into the wild in a celebration of their growing population.
      The condor was promptly attacked, killed, and (probably) eaten by an Osprey.
      So “how thick” the ridicule is spread on/ rubbed in by the MSM depends on who the target is.

  11. @randyjet

    Those steps that you mention are not “naturalization” , as commonly defined. In one respect, the 14th Amendment itself is a “naturalization” law, because it is what makes citizens of most of us. But we don’t go around saying that we are “naturalized.” So far, the courts agree with me, as in the cite above to the recent Pennsylvania case re: Ted Cruz.

    Congress has made equally clear from the time of the
    framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
    subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
    someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes
    a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes
    place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental
    United States. [See, 8 U.S.C. ?1401(g) (2012);
    Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No.
    82?414, ?303, 66 Stat. 163, 236-37; Act ofMay 24, 1934,
    Pub. L. No. 73~250, 48 Stat. 797.]

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


    That crummy formatting is not on me! I cleaned the last one up, but I just left the ?’s in this one.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. @SteveGroen

    I would not have known it except for the fact that I have been fighting off and on in the Birther arena for almost 6 years. A lot of this stuff is just old law, and there isn’t any reason to be up on it. Those ships sailed long ago.

    One old thing that I think you will see coming up in the next few years is the push to let illegal aliens vote in state and city elections. That is one reason why the Dem leadership has been pushing for open borders. They are going to use the illegals for state elections first, and then federal elections if they can get them citizenship

    Most people are not aware that non-citizens are only prohibited from voting in Federal elections, and that states can permit them to vote if they so choose. You will see it first in Blue states.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  13. If Ole Abe said it on the internet tubes it must be true……..Besides, didn’t St Ronnie say that facts are stupid things? If a tree falls in the forest is it Obama’s fault? Wake up people, if you all can’t see that this is a plot by Cruz to make Americans learn Curling, than all hope is lost…………

  14. Paul – Oh, great, because Congress is so neutral and unbiased on the issue.

  15. In a similar manner, anyone born here in the US still has to PROVE certain circumstances in order to get proof of citizenship. They have to apply for a SSN and get a birth certificate. Merely by breathing, they are in fact a citizen, but their parents still have to apply for these documents to get them in the system and acquire their legal status.

  16. https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

    Here are the requirements for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, in which someone “acquires citizenship at birth”, or in other words, is born a US citizen by dint of merely exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide. This additional document is what is required if your birth certificate was issued abroad.

    However, although most legal scholars agree with this view of natural born citizen, it is by no means unanimous. (What is?) So the court will have to decide, and do it quickly.

    Frankly, our court system had better function tout de suite for all of the top 3 contenders so that the American people can at least be informed of who is eligible and NOT going to be serving time in a penitentiary come January.

  17. randyjet:

    “He could NOT get his US passport by simply showing his birth certificate as the rest of us do. He would have to show a consular document and/or his mother’s birth certificate, THEN he would be granted his US citizenship and passport.”

    I could be wrong, but the requirement to show additional paperwork does not grant him citizenship, but rather would prove he was a citizen and thus eligible for a US passport. He would merely have to provide additional paperwork to prove he was born a citizen.

    Otherwise, this would be a major issue for our military, ambassadors, civil servants, and staff to serve overseas during the time they are growing their families, if their children would not be born US citizens.

    Regardless, this is an issue that the court needs to decide once and for all. Our nation is over 200 years old, so it’s about time this was defined properly.

  18. @PhillyT

    Once again, a liberal trying like heck to appear sooo intellectually superior to conservatives. Oh, look at me! I can spell potato, and you can’t, sooo we should keep on paying poor black women to have illegitimate kids! Yeah. I like what this guy says:

    It cannot escape the attention of any observer that the Left regard themselves as intellectuals. They use sesquipedalian polysyllabic words to express themselves, they assume an air of intellectual superiority, they deem themselves to have insights and compassion denied to the hoi polloi and the petit Bourgeoisie.

    It may have escaped your attention, however, that these people are really, really, really stupid; I mean brain-breakingly stupid, too stupid to understand the law of cause and effect, too stupid to understand the causes of war, too stupid to understand the difference between men and women, too stupid to understand the law of supply and demand, too stupid to know the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, too stupid to know the basic rules of logic first established by Aristotle and worked out with painstaking thoroughness by medieval monks.


    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.