All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.

Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!


Birther Issues

I saw this article: Donald Trump goes 'birther' on Ted Cruz, today. 

Some thoughts:
  1. Trump is right, Cruz's status as a "natural born citizen" is in question.  Actually its not in question, Cruz is not constitutionally qualified to be president.  More on that latter.
  2. Trump is right to point out that should Cruz win the nomination and general election there would likely be a drawn out court battle over eligibility.
  3. Ted Cruz as a candidate or how good of a job he would do if in office is not the issue.
From the article:
Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born in Calgary in 1970, but his father had been born in Cuba. Legal scholars say it is likely Cruz would pass the U.S. Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” litmus test if the issue ever landed him in court.
The Texas senator, who was born in Alberta, Canada, also renounced his dual citizenship on May 14, 2014, and released his birth certificate
The strict definition of the term "natural born citizen" as it was applied in the 1700's was a person who was born the child of two citizen parents, born on the soil of his native land.  There is some debate as to the status of a person, who had two citizen parents, but was born outside of the United States.  However, in the case of John McCain, the US Senate has held that two citizen parents whose child was born on a United States military station is in fact a "natural born citizen".
Ted Cruz did not have two citizen parents.  Cruz's mother was a US citizen living in Canada when he was born.  Ted Cruz's father was a Citizen of Cuba until 2005.  Ted Cruz himself held dual citizenship from 1970 until 2014.
I'm not faulting Cruz for maintaining his dual status.  In today's world having more than one passport and more than one place you can legally call home, makes good sense.  I understand doing it.  If I was to guess, Cruz might legally be permitted to  domicile in three countries, the US, Canada and Cuba.  Individually those three passports would allow him access to almost every country on the planet and allow him to pass himself off as a person friendly to his host country.  I get it.  Good for Cruz. 
Ted Cruz maintained his "right of return" to Canada as a citizen of that country until just over a year ago.  For 44 years of his life Cruz maintained Canadian citizenship.  Legally, Cruz has had one foot in each country his entire life.  This isn't hard to do because Canada, like most civilized nations, doesn't require its expatriates to pay income tax on money earned outside of the national boarders.
What happened to cause Cruz to decide to become solely a citizen of the United States?  Oh yeah!  I remember.  A little over a year ago somebody decided that a mostly conservative Hispanic looking Republican might be able to gain a plurality of the white and Hispanic vote and get himself elected president.  Somebody thought that Ted Cruz might be that guy.  More importantly Ted thought he might be that guy. 
Somebody decided (correctly) that Cruz couldn't be a "dual citizen" and a "natural born citizen" so they talked him into sacrificing his Canadian passport.  He did.  That was dumb, but he did it. 
It pains me to type this, but Ted Cruz is less constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States than Obummer, who is absolutely unqualified for the office.
Which brings us to Mr. Trump's second point that should Cruz win against Hillary there will be a major court case.  Absolutely!  That is exactly what will happen.  The mass media slander of the "birthers" against Obummer, wasn't a matter of constitutional principle.  It was the circling of leftist wagons to protect one of their own. 
The Democrats would never be so hypocritical to deny a Republican the Whitehouse over a birth certificate, you say.  Nonsense! While I'm sure its only a draft copy right now, Hilary's legal minions have, no doubt, all ready written the rough copy of a brief for an emergency injunction.  The Clinton's are nothing if not keenly prepared for political possibilities.   Should Cruz win the nomination and look like he is about to cover the spread in the electoral college, there will be war over his eligibility.
You don't have to like Trump.  He's not my favorite.  You might think Cruz would do a good job in office.  He might.  It's not about any of that.  Hilary will do what's best for Hilary.  Cruz doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  The Lizard Queen will let him play along for now.  For Hillary, any  Republican other than Trump is something to be savored, not feared.  For now its in her best interest to set back and wait and see how the GOP will self destruct.  Which is what's going to happen.  For now.


  1. I disagree that Obama was more qualified, simply because the law at that time said that his mother had not been an adult long enough to pass on citizenship to her son. That law has since been changed, but there you go.

    Cruz's mom OTOH, was old enough at the time of his birth to pass citizenship onto her son. Cruz has also had no problem releasing his actual documents, while Obama not only sealed his, but released what we know to be false and made up documents to try and get the whole issue shoved under the rug.

    The other thing here too is that if a republican had the kind of questions swirling around them that Obama had, you just know the media would be on this 24/7 like ugly on a gorilla. Especially played up would be the women of the Kenyan village who were claiming to their dying days that Obama was born there. Think they would let a GOPE candidate get away with that?

    My thought here is, Obama needs to be very careful how involved he allows himself to be in this, because there are plenty of questions about his own eligibility that have never been answered.
    The legal nonsense that says the American voters have "no standing" in demanding full disclosure is the biggest load of feculent manure the courts have ever foisted on the public.

    If we as voters have no standing to demand honesty and full disclosure, then WTH are we doing even voting?

    Mark Levin is saying that Cruz is legally eligible, thanks to his mother, so who knows how this is going to shake out.

  2. I disagree that Obama was more qualified,

    Ted Cruz maintained he was a dual citizen his entire life. Most importantly he did so as an adult for over two decades after his 21st birthday. He knew where he was born and he knew he was maintaining dual citizenship. If he wasn't running for president he would still be maintaining his dual status.

    I dislike Obama. He has proven himself an enemy of the US and its people and culture. As far as I know he didn't purposefully maintain dual travel and citizenship documents only to renounce his citizenship as soon as he thought he might have a shot at the Whitehouse.

    1. Susan3:52 PM

      Until he unseals ALL his personal history, we will never know the extent of his true background.

      Your reasoning is why I am for Trump over Cruz. Although I have a sneaking suspicion that if you look at the candidates through the eyes of Bible prophecy, Marco Rubio might even be in the running. It all depends on how God's plan is advancing though, and who best would serve His purpose though doesn't it.

  3. WaterBoy12:15 PM

    Res Ipsa: "The strict definition of the term "natural born citizen" as it was applied in the 1700's was a person who was born the child of two citizen parents, born on the soil of his native land. "

    Not quite. See the commentary here. Specifically, paragraph 4:

    "As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children."

    The 'natural born' component is especially important, as that is the question regarding Ted Cruz.

    As for Cruz himself, see the State Dept explanation here:

    "Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

    As Ted Cruz was born in 1970, the 'ten years, five after the age of fourteen' residency requirement applies, which was previously fulfilled by Cruz' mother. Hence, citizenship transfers at birth (i.e., natural-born).

    Now, this isn't to say that I would still vote for the guy even though he is qualified under these rules. There's still the matter of his dual-citizenship, and the fact that he held onto all these years brings into question his loyalty to the country. If he held onto it with the intention of maybe moving back there some day, and only dropped it now as an explicit move toward the presidency, then I do question his overall commitment to this country; if he was truly committed, why didn't he drop it when he was younger?

    1. Some kind of weird misguided loyalty to his father perhaps? Maybe he felt like he was denying a large part of his father, plus his father's legacy?
      Familial love can do weird things to people.

    2. Actually I think that should say Maybe he felt like he would be denying a large part of his father's legacy by giving up his Canadian citizenship.

      This is a better version of what I tried to say.

    3. WaterBoy12:32 PM

      ...'expedient move' not 'explicit move'...though both would fit.

    4. WaterBoy12:34 PM

      That could be, Susan...though it then raises the question of how devoted to his father's legacy he was if he would drop it for the chance to hit the White House....

    5. WaterBoy12:36 PM

      And IIRC, I think I read somewhere that his father also later became a U.S. citizen, through naturalization.

  4. Cruz's father did become a US citizen in 2005.

    Accepting for the moment the interpretation of natural born you put forward, Cruz still the other issue you pointed out. He maintained his dual allegiance right up until he started running for president.

    To me, that demonstrates that he blatantly has loyalty issues. Like I've already said, I get why someone would do it. It makes him unfit for the job. I'm holding him to the same standard and definition that I believe should be applied to the current fraud in chief.

  5. WaterBoy1:29 PM

    Res Ipsa: "Accepting for the moment the interpretation of natural born you put forward, Cruz still the other issue you pointed out."

    Yes; I was merely pointing out that they are separate issues. One is a matter of legality, and the other is a matter of loyalty. He can fit the legal definition while still being other than completely loyal.

    That was the purpose of the 'natural-born' clause in the Constitution in the first place -- to avoid someone with potentially divided loyalties taking charge of the country. And I think you summed up that aspect quite well already.