Why Ted Cruz Shouldn’t Be President

9 Shares
Republican National Convention in Tampa

Ted Cruz is a rising star in the Republican Party thanks to his tough stands for liberty and against big government and the status quo. Evidence of his rise and threat to the establishment comes in the fact that CNN now thinks it’s time to give scrutiny to the albatross hanging around Cruz’s neck: scrutiny it never gave to the illegal alien currently occupying the People’s House. CNN asks: “Can Cruz Run For President?”

The simple answer is that because there is no longer the rule of law in America, he probably can and will. But that does not mean he’s a natural born citizen, as required under Article II, Section 1, or that he’s Constitutionally eligible to be President.

Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen but a father who was a Cuban citizen. His father did not become a naturalized American citizen until 2005.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerstat clearly defined a “natural born citizen” as a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” It differentiated “natives or natural born citizens” from “aliens or foreigners.” So as the son of only one U.S. citizen and as one born outside the United States, Cruz is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

The Republican establishment is running from the Cruz eligibility question just as it’s run from the Marco Rubio and Barack Obama eligibility questions. When asked about it by CNN, Senator Rand Paul gave a pat beltway answer, saying: “You won’t find me questioning his eligibility. I decided a long time ago I wasn’t going to be a birther for Democrats. I’m not a birther for Republicans.” The rule of law doesn’t matter to the establishment.

Nor does it matter to CNN. According to their Constitutional “experts,” Athena Jones reports: “[A]ll of them believe that Cruz is. But it’s important to know the Constitution doesn’t define who is a natural-born citizen. And those are the only people eligible to run for president. Also I should add the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.” Except that it has in Minor v. Happerstat, as I pointed out.

As for Rubio, I explained his eligibility problem here and here.

And if you believe Obama’s official narrative (which I don’t), he is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible to be President. And there is little question to those who look with a discerning eye that his birth certificate and Selective Service registration are both forgeries, indicating his birth narrative is a fakery as well.

Personal Liberty

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Whackajig

    Cruz would make a much better president than any of the establishment rinos or the illegal one we have now.

    • me

      Why not have a wacko bird ticket of Paul and Cruz. Both of them have stood up for our rights. the rest of the bunch of possibilities don’t come even close. As far as where cruz was born maybe that rule should have qualifications put in. The wacko birds would pass with no problem.

      • rick0857

        Why not Paul/Lee. You know every time we surrender a Senate seat it puts it in play for the democrats to take. What we really need to do is get back to the Constitution. The last time we had any Congress override a Presidential veto was during Reagan. If we can control the house with 290 and the Senate with 67 there’s nothing that ObaMAO can do. The republicans could override any veto he throws down. As it stands now we have a bunch of cry baby democrats in congress who think compromise means THEY GET THEIR WAY. That is not how it works. Quit electing or allowing to be elected people who promise to give stuff away.

        Those P Ricks work for us now make them earn their money.

    • Jonathan B.

      He might, but as it stands, Cruz isn’t eligible. All the wishful thinking in the world won’t change that. We really need to find someone who is eligible and libertarian conservative to run.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Cruz will have to do the hard thing and step away, the country doesn’t deserve the damage done by doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

    • 5live5

      We can’t make an exception for Cruz. That would legalize obambam.

  • Alex

    Run Ted Cruz. Loser.
    Run Rand Paul. Loser.
    Run, Sarah Palin, run Marco Rubio, run Jim DeMint…..losers one and all.
    Exhume Joe McCarthy and run him.

    All will lose to our first woman president—-Hillary, of course, the overwhelming favorite, but Elizabeth Warren is clearly the People’s Best Advocate and will shine in due time.

    Again, Conservatives will continue to be shunned by thoughtful and caring voters. Thank God!

    • michigander

      A New Jersey rabbi summed up the problem: those who work for a living are coming to be outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

    • Al

      Are you for real or is this a joke because it was really funny

    • me

      Anybody would be better than the traitor, president Owebunhole.

    • Deb

      Thoughtful??? Hardly Alex, you are the loser, and when obozo’s house of cards comes crashing down via obamacare, NSA issues, IRA , media collusion, foreign policy daily debaucles-you and your bewildered dems will be standing there in disbelief that your POS leader LIED to you. Good luck with that.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are claiming that you are a thoughtful and caring voter, so why don’t your comments bear that out.
      You so like the sound of your fingers stroking the keyboard that you don’t even know what your brain puts out.

    • rick0857

      Alex you just can’t WAIT until you are living under the boot of a communist dictator can you. I hope someday you wake up but I fear you will keep that attitude right up to the day when those democrats you seem to love so much take away your home, your bank accounts, everything you own and have worked for all your life because somebody else doesn’t have the same amount of stuff you have. Until you can see that you really should watch this it MIGHT HELP YOU.

      http://vimeo.com/63749370

      • 5live5

        rick, just ignore, my friend. He’s just a drive by troll! there not to educate but to irritate!!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Since O is causing such a division in this country and all his actions have not produced the effective economy, peace across the world with all his meddling, he should step down. It is a moral issue at the heart. He is a failure at being a leader so he should admit that he is a failure and get out of the way but instead behaves like a jackass and digs in his heels and by golly he will make us do things his way even if he kills us all. This kind of childish arrogance in the belief in the Divine Right of Kings seems to be common among the Dems/Progs/Leftists.

    • http://socialsity.com/ LastGasp

      Time to get back on your meds, you’re sounding dangerous.

    • 5live5

      Alex, I think you are going to be rudely surprised. Hitlery is going to self destruct on her husbands trash.

  • NObama_Holder_Reid_Pelosi_2012

    What Cruz needs to do is follow suit like Obama did, and seal all his records. Provide only a digitize short form BC and deny any implications that he was born in Canada just as Obama has denied any implication he was born in Kenya, though his own biographies and books have stated such, now suddenly are typo’s and misunderstandings.

    Things that Cruz most likely has that Obama doesn’t have are legitimate selective service records and social security numbers that are not forged and stolen. I’ll bet Cruz can also offer all his college documents with pride and not have to hide his records for some fear such as perhaps getting foreign student aid to attend. Cruz’s history most likely don’t involve being surrounded and raised by muslims and communists and his purported mentors are not previous terrorists and communist radicals like Obama’s parents and Frank Marshall Davis and ayers is and was. I can say with confidence that you will never find Cruz’s name on any foreign schools record listing himself as a national of another country and listing his religious affiliation with muslim like Obama records show he claimed indonesian nationality and listed himself as muslim.

    That is just a start as to what Cruz has up on Obama. If Obama sealed records and failure to provide absolute proof with microfilm or original BC and his past and influences are not contributing factors to his eligibility then the same fair play goes for any candidate running in coming elections.

    Deny everything and take Cruz’s word, he was born in the US and top of his class. The real deciding factor as to lock Cruz’s nomination for candidate is that he must become a community organizer somewhere, that is apparently the real deciding factor and what it takes to get a nomination for the presidency in this Country these days.

    • mark

      Obama’s autobiographical books never claimed he was born in Kenya but rather state clearly that he was born in Hawaii which in 1961 had been for two years a state of the United States. You obviously have not read Obama’s books..

    • 5live5

      No we don’t. We don’t want to start a precedent. Obambam is what you end up with if you circumvent the constitution!

      • NObama_Holder_Reid_Pelosi_2012

        I understand your point on the subject, but as far as circumventing our Constitution is no new action. The government has been circumventing it for over a century. Just now a days they do it at a more brazing pace.

  • Mike Butler

    The one question that has to be asked is one that has been addressed in other legal proceeding regarding this same question. Did Ted Cruz have to apply for citizenship? If the answer is no then he is a natural born citizen, if he had to apply for citizenship he is not qualified. This question has been asked many times before Obama, going back to prior to 1870.Many children of American service members are born overseas, that would give them a birth certificate of a foreign country, however since their parents are American citizens they would also be given an American birth certificate also. And would be considered a Natural born citizen. They would also be considered to have dual citizenship.

    • Deb

      Then again, Barry Soetoro, Obama, whatever-did HE have to apply? He has had many alias’ and various country affiliations, Indonesia being one of them-so why did the dems give him a free pass on this?

      • smilee

        IN you dreams and none of it is true!

        • Debbie Hogan Tate

          Oh I see we have an Obama supporter in our mist! Are you a paid troll? or do you just troll? He never reapplied for Citizenship when he came back from Indonesia. He could only go to school there if he was an Indonesian or a British subject. He gave up his citizenship and never reclaimed it. Even if he had reclaimed it, that disqualifies him from running as Prez! Get you facts straight!

          • smilee

            You are the ones with the misinformation, nothing you said is accurate,.

          • 5live5

            Refute it fact for fact, Or can’t you do that smelly??

          • smilee

            Go see factcheck.org and google the letter released from the State of Hawaii and they prove it’s authenticity and that is real facts. No honest and intelligent person any longer has any doubt as these facts are so overwhelming

          • 5live5

            you mean no progressive liberal puke has any doubt!

    • rick0857

      In the case of Military personnel children born overseas are considered to be born on sovereign U.S. Soil. Any Military installation that is overseas is like an Embassy it is considered U.S. Soil. Cruz whether he had to apply for citizenship is irrelevant, BOTH of his parents WERE NOT CITIZENS at the time of his birth DITTO ObaMAO.

      • mark

        No, Barak Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

        • http://socialsity.com/ LastGasp

          Was she? Or was she a citizen of Indonesia?

          • Vigilant

            She was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

          • smilee

            Would not change anything about Obama what ever she did but I believe she was still a US citizen at time of her death.

          • 5live5

            We’re not talking about beliefs here, smelly, we’re talking FACTS!

        • rick0857

          Try and keep up here Cruz’s mother was a US citizen so was obama’s but both their fathers were not.

      • Mike Butler

        Not all Military bases overseas have facilities to provide all medical care so they use local facilities, just like they do in the U.S.

        • Vigilant

          As a civilian independent contractor with NATO, two of my sons were born in local hospitals in Heerlen, the Netherlands. They are natural born US citizens by law and I have the State Department birth certificates to prove it. Their mother is Dutch.

          • Mike Butler

            Thank You very much for proving the point that I was trying to make.

        • rick0857

          I’m a freaking twelve year veteran of the Army you think I don’t know that?

          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            Oh and we are supposed to read minds to know about you being a veteran? Said nothing about it in your post! So what is the point of this rant?

      • Vigilant

        He’s a natural born US citizen. Only one parent need be a US citizen.

        • Debbie Hogan Tate

          BOTH parents have to US citizens! That says it all!!

          • Vigilant

            Sorry, Debbie, that’s incorrect. If it were so, Chester A. Arthur could never have become president.

            Two of my sons were born in the Netherlands in Dutch hospitals. Their mother is a Dutch citizen. Both sons became US citizens at birth by virtue of my citizenship.

            I have a State Dept. form for each that reports the birth abroad of a US citizen. Both sons are eligible to run for president.

          • Guest
          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            Arthur took over when Garfield died, he did not run for the office. He was not voted in, he got it by default when Garfield died. Only our president has to have both natural citizen. All other offices require only one parent be a citizen. He was an “acting” president till the end of Garfield,s term.. Just like Johnson was when Kennedy was shot. He was sworn in as the “acting” president.

          • Vigilant

            Incorrect again.

            Article II, Sections 5 and 6:

            “5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

            “6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”

          • Vigilant

            “Only our president has to have both natural citizen. All other offices require only one parent be a citizen.”

            Kindly cite your source for that misinformation..

          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            The KEY words here are “both of whose parents”
            The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it isthe law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
            Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
            Anyone born inside the United States *

            Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

            Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as oneparent has lived in the U.S.

            Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

          • smilee

            Pay Attention when you become president you are no longer the vice president you are the president and all eligibility for the presidency applies to the former vice president who is not an acting president he is the real president when he takes that office, Arthur was a natural Born Citizen so it did not apply as you say on that grounds either.

          • smilee

            Vigilant is right on this one you are wrong.

        • Debbie Hogan Tate

          For all offices EXCEPT the presidency!

          • Vigilant

            Your answer is at odds with both immigration law and established legal procedure.

            There are only two types of citizens, i.e., citizens at birth and naturalized citizens.

            Cruz, my two sons and Chester A. Arthur contradict your assertion. They are/were all citizens at birth.

          • smilee

            Obama was found to be a natural born citizen by the appeals court in Indiana in 2009 and it was not appealed further that decision and order stands as the law of the land. now and by their definition in this decisive Cruz would be a natural born citizen also.

      • Vigilant

        Cruz’ mother a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

        • rick0857

          [expletive deleted] AGAIN never said anything about his mother.

      • Mike Butler

        If you would care to read the article above before making comments that you know nothing about, you would see that Ted Cruz’s mother is a U.S. citizen.
        By the way Naval Station Rota, Spain is NOT an American base it is a Spanish base with a joint military presence.

        • rick0857

          Again didn’t say anything about his mother or ObaMAO’s for that matter ONLY THEIR FATHERS and what the hell does Rota Spain have to do with this? And by the way if you were to correctly state the title of Rota you would have to say…U.S. Naval Station Rota Spain

          • Vigilant

            “Again didn’t say anything about his mother or ObaMAO’s for that matter ONLY THEIR FATHERS…”

            Are you given to flat out lying now? You said and I quote, “BOTH of his parents WERE NOT CITIZENS at the time of his birth DITTO ObaMAO.”

          • rick0857

            Exactly why can’t you understand BOTH parents were not citizens AS IN MEANING ONLY ONE WAS!!!!

          • Vigilant

            Take a course in English basics. “BOTH parents were not citizens” does not mean “ONLY ONE WAS.”

            How do you ever expect to be taken seriously when you don’t understand even the rudimentary rules of the English language?

  • northbrook

    The liberals did not worry about where Obama was born or that one parent was foreign born why worry about Cruz Oh that’s right he is a conservative

    • Debbie Hogan Tate

      Two wrongs don’t make it right!

    • smilee

      Cruz was also born in Canada and lived his first four years there, of that there is no dispute. Did he give up his Canadian citizenship, did he apply for dual citizenship with the US most do that I have relatives in Canada who where born and raised there and have dual citizenship as their mother was born in the US and their father in Canada but because of their mother they can apply for dual citizenship. We do not know about Cruz. We do know Obama was born in the US and never had dual citizenship or foreign citizenship, only US citizenship.

      • Debbie Hogan Tate

        Wrong! When he went to school in Indonesia he had to give up his citizenship to the USA! They only accepted British subjects and Indonesian citizens. Once he gave up that right he became disqualified! Even if he reapplied for US citizenship, he is ineligible!

        • smilee

          Where do you get all this BS from, none of it is true. Is theer any propaganda you will not believe?

  • MontieR

    If the chickechit TRAITOR we have can be president, then why not Crux.

    • GQ4U

      Because then Cruz would become a “chickechit TRAITOR” like Obama.

      I love the guys politics but the Constitution either means something to ya or it don’t… you decide. CNN is on the right track and I applaud them getting one right (finally) and perhaps this will bring BHO under scrutiny as the POS usurper he is.

      • Impeach them.all

        CNN sucks, they love Obama, all news including fox is sold out oh by the way CNN and Fox ate partially owned bya Saudi prince. so these are bad resources . Obama is not eligible to be our President this man Obama is a disgrace to the office ofthe President.

      • 5live5

        GQ4U, That’s what I’m hoping. If they make a big stink and disqualify Cruz on the fact that his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth, then that would mean, by default, that Obambam is not eligible!!! Could open a BIG can of worms for Obam!!

        • GQ4U

          All we need is a judge who isn’t afraid of worms.

  • GQ4U

    Article II; Section I; Clause V; is clearly there for a reason. I am mad as hell they are letting POS usurper get away with it so how can we love America while we destroy the Constitution. Don’t like what it says then amend it but don’t trash it over Cruz — no one is worth that. Same is true of Rubio & Jindal.

    • mark

      Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1971. Last I heard that was a state of the United States – even though nothing in the Constitution says you can buy land from another country and then make it part of the United States and all its inhabitants U.S. subjects without consulting any of them – the over 300,000 Frenchmen, Spaniards, and indigenous who lived in the vast Louisiana territory in 1803. Strict constructionist Jefferson worried about this quite a bit but did it anyway after having condemned Hamilton for years over everything he did that was not clearly spelled out as Constitutional. But then Tommy boy had some other inconsistencies as a champion of liberty – like those 200 slaves he owned. The Louisiana Purchase also allowed Jefferson and his fellow Southerners to spread their beloved institution of slavery further west.

      • Sam

        Are you one of those leftists who trash America all the time?

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Yes he is. Yet he still resides in the States and hasn’t gone to other parts of the world for his Worker’s Paradise but
          there are agencies taking names and dibs for one way trips to Mars. The Leftists can all go together and start from the beginning to make their worker’s paradise

          • 5live5

            ooh! Can we buy one for Obambam???? I’d gladly donate to THAT!

        • mark

          No, this is just our actual history which high school textbooks whitewashed when I was a kid. Jefferson was a hypocrite on strict constructionism when it came to the LA purchase, he owned around 200 slaves, and the LA purchase allowed the institution of slavery to move west into such states as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri. What part of these facts are wrong? We’re all supposed to just applaud the good things in our history like our support for republican government, independence, and economic freedom but then sweep all our faults under the rug? That isn’t a mature analysis of our history.

          • Vigilant

            “…the LA purchase allowed the institution of slavery to move west into such states as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri.”
            So? What’s your (non)point?

      • GQ4U

        Simple question — were Jindal’s parents both U.S. citizens on the day he was born?

        The rest of you post is illogical ranting. come back if your brain cells start firing again. Thanks.

  • Impeach them.all

    Well, what about Obummers eligibility? Obama is anti Christian, supports terrorism. he hates whites which means he is racist, look at the division he loves it, and thus,rodeo clown thing, well there were bush masks and other President that this also happened to. the liberal media, MSNBC, CBS, etc…makes I big deal but if this was a bush mask or other republican president they would not care. , at least Ted Cruz is a patriot, and he truly loves his country and the people in it.

    • Jeff

      Were you born this stupid or did it take years to develop?

      • smilee

        He is probably to stupid to answer your question at least honestly.

  • backrow

    You tell me, why the press has tried so hard to disqualify Cruz, and yet did not lift one finger to unearth obama. Dumbocratic bias

    • Alan

      Simple, business as usual for the press. Liberal = good, Conservative = bad.

  • Deb

    Well, even if Cruz is deemed to be eligible to run-IF he gets the nomination, who doesn’t think the libs will fight it kicking and screaming???? They will and most likely will debate the issue to death, the death of the Republican nominee for president, and then we are doomed for exactly what these stupid sheep demorats have been boasting/predicting since 2008-no more Republicans in office. Then what?

    • Doc Sarvis

      Then the United States will continue to prosper.

      • momo

        Like it is now Sarvis?

      • http://socialsity.com/ LastGasp

        This is prosperity?

      • DalasKnight

        Prosper hell! This economy will collapse within the year!!!

        • Doc Sarvis

          Uh, that is what the Right was saying last year, and the year before that. and…

      • 5live5

        Yeah doc, more reports of the unemployed rising!!! More forclosed homes, more families being broken up. Yeah BUDDY! That’s prosperous!!!

  • Sam

    On Obama’s birth certificate it says that his father was born in Kenya when in fact, Kenya wasn’t under that name yet, not until December of 1964. Obama was born in August of 1963. What the democrats did to obama in order to get him elected was to create a “glasnost”, or a persona of the perfect guy. It’s all a lie. Obama is here to subvert America and get rid of our Constitution. Morsi threw out the Egyptian constitution as soon as he got into office. He then started acting like a dictator after promising democracy. You can see how the Muslim Brotherhood works to gain power. The communists did the same thing. Hitler did the same thing. They get power with one lie after another. Obama has done so many bad things yet the congress does nothing. He should be arrested by our military and charged with treason for the things he has done.

    • rick0857

      I for one am still waiting for the day that the Joint Chiefs of Staff walk into the Oval office and handcuff that traitorous SOB.

      • Jeff

        Another one who wants a coup. And what if someone had arrested W for invading Iraq? But wait! He’s a white Republican and only Democrats (particularly the Black ones) should be overthrown. Words are insufficient to express how idiotic your post is.

        • Debbie Hogan Tate

          I believe his point is that he is illegal and should not to be there. Bush was legal. Got nothing to do with race!! You must be a racist if you keep bring it up!! We don’t care if he was white or purple, Rep or Dem, he needs to be removed. Get off your racial rant! Words are insufficient to express how idiotic YOUR post is!

        • 5live5

          sorry Jeff, that would not have happened. He had the blessing od the house and congress!!

    • Jeff

      Then we could be just like Egypt and every ex-President can get arrested. You want to throw out the one thing that has kept our democracy functioning for over 200 years. I hope I never get old and crazy enough to understand that kind of idiocy.

    • Debbie Hogan Tate

      It also stares that his father was African, A term not used in 1961! It should say “Negro” as that was the term used, also on other birth certificates in the days before and after his birth! His BC document number does not line up with the births before and after his birth either!

      • smilee

        African was used for those whom were from Africa at the time so that means nothing. More BS not worth addressing.

      • smilee

        African was used for those whom were from Africa at the time so that means nothing. More BS not worth addressing.

  • Doc Sarvis

    If the GOP wants to lose another Presidential election they will run a hard liner. A moderate Mitt Romney lost because he was trying to appeal to the hard Right and he lost the middle of the electorate. Centrist President Obama had an easy time because of that fact. The GOP will win or lose depending on whether it choses to run a Centrist or someone on the margins of the Right.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      The Leftists are telling the Republicans what candidates they find acceptable for the Republicans.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Actually, this is what the Republican National Committee said after the election.

      • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

        That just their compassion screaming.

      • Jeff

        I hope you get a candidate just as crazy as you deserve. Ted Cruz would be perfect as far as I’m concerned. Hillary will win every state except the real Confederacy.

    • rick0857

      Mitt Romney lost because 100% of EVERY VOTE IN WAY TOO MANY COUNTIES WENT TO THE USURPER IN CHIEF. THIS LAST ELECTION WAS A TOTAL FRAUD AND A SLAP IN THE FACE OF ALL FAIR MINDED AMERICANS. BUT HEY IF DEMOCRATS DIDN’T CHEAT YOU’D NEVER WIN AN ELECTION. IF DEMOCRATS WERE HONEST YOU’D NEVER WIN AN ELECTION.

      • Doc Sarvis

        How many counties had 100% votes???

        • smilee

          none anywhere in the US, the highest I think was seventy some percent

          • 5live5

            you better check up on Cuyahoga county Ohio! Some had 98% for obam. a couple had Romney getting one or two votes. There were reported totals of up to 107% turn out in some precincts! nice try smelly!

          • smilee

            We were talking about the percentage of registered voters who voted in a precinct not how many of them voted for either candidate and is some precincts all went for Romney and it some all went for Obama but this was rare. I believe the total of fraud convictions nationwide was 89, give them all to Romney and he gains 178 votes and that changes nothing. This was a fair and square elections and if it was not there would be a lot of court activity and there is not because you not allowed to bring BS into court only facts.So cherish your BS as that is all you can do with it.

          • 5live5

            BS? Even some of the reps at the precincts said it was impossible. I have friends that live in one of the precincts that Romney had one vote and they BOTH voted for Romney. I suppose the aliens from mars caused that?? you are so blind that I swear you have to be a proctologist as your head is firmly up your wazoo!

          • smilee

            The Far Right is always telling lies but you or them cannot prove it is true as no one know how anyone voted only what they say they voted. I guess one of your friends THEN voted for OBAMA AND WAS AFRAID TO ADMIT IT. your nasty words only illuminate your lack of charater

        • smilee

          none anywhere in the US, the highest I think was seventy some percent

      • Vigilant

        From an e-mail I received today:
        Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come.

        * In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not a single vote recorded for
        Romney (a mathematical and statistical impossibility).

        * In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations – and not one single vote was recorded for Romney (another statistical impossibility).

        * In Wood County Ohio , 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.

        * In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.

        * The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL, had a 158% voter turnout.

        * Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.

        * In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.

        NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote. That’s why the Democrats are so against Photo IDs. Illegal aliens, dead people, bused-in voters from other states, etc., wouldn’t be able to vote.

        • Doc Sarvis

          An e-mail you got yesterday, now there’s documentation – HA!

          • Vigilant

            Yeah, Sarvis, too bad your mail order brain hasn’t arrived yet.

          • smilee

            Your foolishness has been exposed!!

          • Vigilant

            Now here’s the only idiot in the US who has ever claimed that slavery was unconstitutional under the original, pre-13th Amendment, calling me foolish.

            I’ll one up you: you’re ignorant and stupid.

            P.S. Let me know the moment you discover any credible reference or source that claims slavery was unconstitutional. You have never provided one, and you never will.

          • smilee

            Now here’s the only idiot in the US who has ever claimed that slavery was unconstitutional under the original, pre-13th Amendment, calling me foolish.

            WRONG!!! YOU ARE FOOLISH AND THAT IS NOT MY FAULT

            I’ll one up you: you’re ignorant and stupid.

            BUT I’M FAR FAR MORE INTELLIGENT THAN YOU ARE

            P.S. Let me know the moment you discover any credible reference or source that claims slavery was unconstitutional. You have never provided one, and you never will.

            YOUR WRONG HERE IT IS BUT I’M SURE YOUR
            EARS ARE CLOSED SO IT WILL BE LIKE TALKING TO A DEAF MAN

            First, the Preamble of the United States Constitution

            We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
            more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
            Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

            We the people and that is not exclusive to any people, not women, not blacks not anyone. If it is not defined elsewhere in the Constitution excluding anyone then they are part of We the People including every person and blacks were not excluded and thus they were entitled under the Constitution to the protections of the Bill of Rights. No place in the Constitution does it define who a slave is or sanction the activity. When the constitution was being drafted this was a contentious issue and to insure a Constitution it was compromised that slavery not be defined or addressed and state slavery laws be respected in practice but
            not put in the Constitution that slavery was Constitutional and it was not then sanctioned but did include that slaves could be imported until 1808 and that for tax purposes but it does not say this was to be applied to blacks just non free persons so it could have been applied to anyone regardless of color, not in practice but by the Constitution. After Madison V Marbury some worried the SC under the right persons could overturn slavery laws and it was not addressed until in 1857 when the SC decided Dred Scott v Sanford in which it had to define blacks the equivalent of pigs, chickens, cattle etc and that is how he skirted
            the fact they were person./human beings thus a part of We the People and entitled to the protections defined in the Bill of Rights. Justice Taney wrote
            it this way “It seem to be supposed, that there is a difference between property in a slave and other property, and that different rules be applied to
            it in expounding the Constitution of the United States” This decision was at the time highly controversial
            at the time and the trigger to the events leading up to the Civil War four years later and though many say the Civil War was not about slavery but economics and States Rights but the biggy in both those issues was slaves and the south very much wanted to keep it and fought hard for it and lost. President Lincoln in his wisdom knew that without a clarifying amendment to the Constitution the slavery issue would not be ended so he insisted that Congress pass it before he would accept surrender from the South and the thirteenth amendment was passed and later ratified insuring that it could not again be wrongly decided by the SC. Most scholars today rank Dred Scott as the most wrongly decided decision in the history of SC decisions .and that slavery was never Constitutional. You believe that if it is a law it is constitutional and we have always had laws that are enforced that do not meet Constitutional
            muster and it remains that way until the court agrees to hear it and then rules against it. recently we have seen it in marriage laws regarding gay people, the courts that have ruled on it (the SC as yet has not) and ruled that gay marriage was protected under the fourteenth amendment, that amendment was ratified in 1868 and only in the last decade has it been enforced with respect to gay marriage.

            NOW DO NOT SAY I DID NOT TELL YOU!!
            IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE YOU THINK THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS SLAVERY OR DESCRIBES WHO ARE SLAVES FEEL FREE TO TRY, BE CAREFUL NOT TO MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF IF YOU TRY.

          • Vigilant

            I’ve already provided the references within the Constitution, which you ignore every time. I repeat, let me know the moment you discover any credible reference or source that claims slavery was unconstitutional. You have never provided one, and you never will.

          • Vigilant

            Smilee, I’ve provided this before, and I’ll do it again, although you most likely will not read it. It’s from the words of Frederick Douglass, former slave who became a great leader in America.

            If you have the balls to read it, you just might change your mind (but I doubt that too). It’s entitled “The Constitution and Slavery,” and Douglass wrote it in 1849.

            http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-and-slavery/

            Among many other things, Douglass said “Had the Constitution dropped down from the blue overhanging sky, upon a land uncursed by slavery , and without an interpreter, although some difficulty might have occurred in applying its manifold provisions, yet so cunningly is it framed, that no one would have imagined that it recognized or sanctioned slavery. But having a terrestrial, and not a celestial origin, we find no difficulty in ascertaining its meaning in all the parts which we allege to relate to slavery. Slavery existed before the Constitution, in the very States by whom it was made and adopted. — Slaveholders took a large share in making it. It was made in view of the existence of slavery, and in a manner well calculated to aid and strengthen that heaven-daring crime.”

            If you know how to read, smilee, read that last sentence.

          • smilee

            I respect his opinion but that does not change my position it is still the correct one I was talking about legally he is talking more about cultural things and I agree with him but it changes nothing as you still have not pointed to that part of the Constitutions that says that. We were after all talking about the words in the Constitution not Fredrick Douglas’s words. Also he is a person I hold in very high regard. Now show me where in the Constitution you think slavery is sanctioned and what persons are the slaves and what persons are not slaves, in legal practice in state laws it was only black people. That is your challenge and to date you have failed, I’m still waiting for a valid response.

          • Vigilant

            Somehow it doesn’t surprise me all that you ignore the position of the foremost abolitionist thinker of his day, as well as EVERY Constitutional scholar in history..

            You are a liar. I provided chapter and verse in the Constitution that refers to slavery a number of times. Frederick Douglass and EVERY Constitutional scholar points them out as well.

            To quote Douglass’s references,

            “Art. 1st, Sect. 9th. — The migration or importation of any such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars each person.”

            “Art. 4th, Sec. 2nd. — No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

            “The first article and ninth section is a full, complete and broad sanction of the slave trade for twenty years.”

            “Art. 4, Sec. 2. — This article was adopted with a view to restoring fugitive slaves to their masters…”

            With respect to the 3/5 Compromise on representation clause, Douglass says, “One thing is certain about this clause of the Constitution. It is this — that under it, the slave system has enjoyed a large and domineering representation in Congress, which has given laws to the whole Union in regard to slavery, ever since the formation of the government.”

            Now smilee, you ignore at your intellectual peril the points made by Douglass and EVERY Constitutional scholar. AND DON’T LIE AGAIN BY SAYING I’VE NEVER POINTED OUT THE SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT CONDONE SLAVERY.

            P.S, Tell us again how highly you respect Frederick Douglass when you have disagreed with EVERY word he ever uttered with regard to slavery and the Constitution.

          • smilee

            Somehow it doesn’t surprise me all that you ignore the position of the foremost abolitionist thinker of his day, as well as EVERY Constitutional scholar in history..

            MY RESPONSE: (what a liar, do you really want us to believe 100%) No there are many that dispute your take on this

            You are a liar. I provided chapter and verse in the Constitution that refers to slavery a number of times. Frederick Douglass and EVERY Constitutional scholar points them out as well.

            MY RESPONSE: Douglas had his opinions and I believe they are good ones but that is all they are is opinions and he did not intend to interpret the Constitution by them

            To quote Douglass’s references,

            “Art. 1st, Sect. 9th. — The migration or importation of any such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars each person.”

            MY RESPONSE I acknowledged this but it does not sanction slavery only that congress will not prohibit importations until 1808 it does not say those persons
            were slaves albeit that was understood but not inserted in the written clause. This does not make it constitutional albeit it did exist just like gays existed
            for over a hundred years before they were given their rights to marry under the constitution which mendment was inserted in 1868.

            “Art. 4th, Sec. 2nd. — No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

            MY RESPONSE: This Claus was intended for indentured servants under labor contract
            and whom made up a large number of people at the time as many of them escaped, it was never used for slaves as slaves under the state laws were considered property and indentured servants were not (legally but they were treated much the same as slaves but under contract not ownership) when they escaped could easily blend into the crowds which black people could not. This was not intended for slaves and even the dred scott decision was not based on it because of that.

            “The first article and ninth section is a full, complete
            and broad sanction of the slave trade for twenty years.”

            MY RESPONSE: Article I Sec 9, clause 1, reads as follws: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not
            exceeding ten dollars for each Person
            It allowed transportation of persons not defined as slaves in the written word. You ignore the DOI the
            Preamble of the Constitution and then read into these clauses words that are not there. Have you read the dred scott decision which sheds a lot of light on
            it and why there was such an uproar after it was rendered which led up to the civil war

            With respect to the 3/5 Compromise on representation
            clause, Douglass says, “One thing is certain about this clause of the Constitution. It is this — that under it, the slave system has enjoyed a large and domineering representation in Congress, which has given laws to the whole Union in regard to slavery, ever since the formation of the governmen

            MY RESPONSE:.”TRUE< Irrelevant to this conversation

            MY RESPONSE: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3

            Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which
            may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
            determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a
            Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
            The written clause does not define anybody as a slave in practice slaves were considered in
            “other” and we are talking about how the Constitution was written not the cultural practices of the day or state law as you some want to do. You totally
            ignore the Preamble

            .-Preamble “

            We the People of the United States, in
            Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
            defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

            And this part of the DOI

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

            To make it more clear you need to include the dred scott decision that was decided not on the Constitution but on these things the Naturalization Act of 1790, State laws, English law and past practices and exiting culture. To do that the court did substitute “We the People” for “for “We the Citizen” so that it could disregard the
            following definition in the DOI …that all men are created equal” as was intended in the words “WE the People” in the preamble,by doing so no one was protected by the constitution but citizens all other people were kicked out.. The Naturalization Act of 1790 disallowed citizenship to blacks so under the ruling they had no protections under the law
            and this was for all blacks, free ones, escaped slaves and slaves as they were now free to enslave and own them as the law no longer protected any of them or
            any non citizen even non blacks. Now, the court concluded that if they were property no state could withhold another man’s property and all states had to comply which the free states had not done before. Early in the 19th century the underground
            railroad sprang up and by time the dred scott case was decided it had helped many to freedom in the free states and Canada, some estimates of the time was
            well over 100,000 slaves then lived in free states as fre men and this ruling now was now equating them the same as pigs, cows chickens etc.and thus property and no state could no longer protect them.
            The DOI declared that ALL (meaning 100% ALL ALL ALL) men are created equal and entitled to life liberty and happiness. You ignore all this and the
            clauses that are not definitive in the written word you read into but these words are there and when these words are upheld then the bill of rights would
            have had to apply as well. The court under the constitution had the power to free the slaves if it had so chosen but instead changed its meaning and discontinued the constitutional protections for all people on the country. This never was
            done as it created a firestorm of opposition and within 4 years they went to war which settled the issue and created new amendments that rendered this decision
            fully null and void and in practice no other way could have done this due to the cultural pressures of
            the time. The ruling also rendered the Missouri Compromise fully null and void.This was a terrible opinion regarded as the worst decision ever.

            Now smilee, you ignore at your intellectual peril the points made by Douglass and EVERY Constitutional scholar. AND DON'T LIE AGAIN BY SAYING I'VE NEVER POINTED OUT THE SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT CONDONE SLAVERY.

            You did point out some but it dId not prove your point as you cherry picked and ignored the preamble, bill of rights and the DOI WHICH ARE FOR ALL PEOPLLE AS THE DOI CLEARLY STATES AND We the People in the Preamble is all inclusive to. This is about what the Constitution actually says not about the culture of the day and its practices which you have tried to make the Constitution fit into.

            P.S,
            Tell us again how highly you respect Frederick Douglass when you have disagreed
            with EVERY word he ever uttered with regard to slavery and the Constitution.

            MY RESPONSE:.FALSE, JUST YOUR INACCURATE OPINION

            Read This:

            The Dred Scott Decision

            Dred Scott was the name of an African-American slave. He was taken by his master, an officer in the U.S. Army, from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and then to the free territory of Wisconsin. He lived on free soil for a long period of time. When the Army ordered his master to go back to Missouri, he took Scott with him back to that slave state, where his master died. In 1846, Scott was helped by Abolitionist (anti-slavery) lawyers to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free since he had lived on free soil for a long time. The case
            went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, was a former slave owner from Maryland. In
            March of 1857, Scott lost the decision as seven out of nine Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or ever had been a U.S. citizen. As a non-citizen, the court stated, Scott had no rights and could not sue in a Federal Court and must remain a At that time there were nearly 4 million slaves in America. The court's ruling affected the status of every enslaved and free African-American in the United States. The ruling served to turn back the clock concerning the rights of
            African-Americans, ignoring the fact that black men in five of the original States had been full voting citizens dating back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

            The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be
            unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery north of the parallel 36°30´ in the Louisiana Purchase. The Court declared it violated the
            Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law.
            Anti-slavery leaders in the North cited the controversial Supreme Court decision as evidence
            that Southerners wanted to extend slavery throughout the nation and ultimately rule the nation itself. Southerners approved the Dred Scott decision believing Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories. Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action,
            publicly speaking out against it.

            Overall, the Dred Scott decision had the effect of widening the political and social gap between North and South and took the nation closer to the brink of Civil War.

          • smilee

            No you have not so why not clear that up now because I know you have not done so before as I have asked before and you ignored me. Re-asking gets the same answer so will not retype it Like I said: YOUR WRONG, HERE IT IS BUT I’M SURE YOUR EARS ARE CLOSED SO IT WILL BE LIKE TALKING TO A DEAF MAN, I was right. If you are so smart tell the whole world what you claimed to have told me. Truth is you can not because it is not there to tell and you know that. You struck out when you ignored commenting on the content of my post. We both know it is irrefutable and if you did you would expose your phoniness and your poor skills at lying.

          • Vigilant

            We’ve always known you can’t write using proper English. now we know you have zero reading comprehension as well.

            There’s absolutely no hope for you. You have never, over these months, provided one credible source or quotation to support your position. You are not just an irritating immature little piss ant, you are cursed with both ignorance and stupidity.

            You have been, are, and I have no doubt will spend the rest of your life being wrong. Your wrongness knows no bounds; it is more than a hobby or habit with you, it is your mission in life to be wrong. It is your goal to perennially lock out all information which could expand your knowledge.

            Assertions that come from the vacuum between your ears are made with no reference to the accumulated wisdom of experts and scholars; you simply refer to “something I saw or heard somewhere,” constructs of a “brain” that is totally inadequate to the task of rational discourse.

            I would venture to surmise that, at the time of your arrested mental development (sometime in the fourth grade), you had already reconciled yourself to the fact that people frequently laugh at you behind your back. Sucks to be you.

          • smilee

            So I finally really pizzed you off didn’t I. WE’VE. Do have a turd in your pocket???. You ignore all my content and then do a cruel and stupid character assignation motivated by the hate of me having made a made a fool out of you as that is what i did when I left you without answers when I gave you a valid explanation that you can not refute, You have been pitching pure BS all the time on this topic and it seems it got spattered all over you this time. Your no match for me never have been never will be!!!!

          • Vigilant

            “We the people and that is not exclusive to any people, not women, not blacks not anyone.”

            Wrong as always.

            Indians, British loyalists and slaves were not party to the group who constituted themselves as a nation in 1787.

            “The parties that made the Constitution, aimed to cheat and defraud the slave, who was not himself a party to the compact or agreement. It was entered into understandingly on both sides. They both designed to purchase their freedom and safety at the expense of the imbruted slave. The North are willing to become the body guards of slavery — suppressing insurrection — returning fugitive slaves to bondage — importing slaves for twenty years, and as much longer as the Congress should see fit to leave it unprohibited, and virtually to give slaveholders three votes for ever five slaves they could plunder from Africa…”

            -Frederick Douglass, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-and-slavery/

          • smilee

            Indians, British loyalists and slaves were not party to the group who constituted themselves as a nation in 1787.

            Your right they were not citizens but the DOI and the preamble excludes no body so the Constitution covers every one in their pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so the written word says in our two founding documents. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness was in the written word for everyone but that was not adhered to and after the dred scott decision your take was put into writing and any non citizen could have been by its terms made a slave. It shortly after resulted in the civil war and shortly after that amendments were added that rendered this decision fully null and void and reestablished that life liberty and happiness was again intended for all. We are still working on that. By the time the dred scott decision was rendered it was estimated that over 100,000 slaves had escaped to free states and were living as free men only concerned they would not be found by the kidnap squads who would kidnap them and return them to their masters. It was done this way as the free states refused to return them most of the time until the dred scott decision which now officially made them property and no different than any non human animal and as they were now officially property all states had to capture and return them to their owners,did not happen much and the civil war settled that issue for good.

          • smilee

            Indians, British loyalists and slaves were not party to the group who constituted themselves as a nation in 1787.

            Your right they were not citizens but the DOI and the preamble excludes no body so the Constitution covers every one in their pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so the written word says in our two founding documents. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness was in the written word for everyone but that was not adhered to and after the dred scott decision your take was put into writing and any non citizen could have been by its terms made a slave. It shortly after resulted in the civil war and shortly after that amendments were added that rendered this decision fully null and void and reestablished that life liberty and happiness was again intended for all. We are still working on that. By the time the dred scott decision was rendered it was estimated that over 100,000 slaves had escaped to free states and were living as free men only concerned they would not be found by the kidnap squads who would kidnap them and return them to their masters. It was done this way as the free states refused to return them most of the time until the dred scott decision which now officially made them property and no different than any non human animal and as they were now officially property all states had to capture and return them to their owners,did not happen much and the civil war settled that issue for good.

        • Doc Sarvis

          Make that today – even better.

        • Javk

          Vigilant:

          Did you bother to try to verify whether or not what the email said was true or did you just accept it as being true? Of course you didn’t check things out, you just accepted the claims as being true.That’s the problem with the vast majority of people who post on PLD. You (the posters) just believe anything that supports your ideas. A bunch of lemmings blindly being led over the cliff.

          If you would have checked out the claims the email makes you would have found out that they are all totally false and have been disproved.

          In 2012, Florida, Ohio and Penn. all had Republican Governor’s and Secretaries of State (they run the elections for those states). There is no way that they wouldn’t moved heaven and earth to turn their states to Romney if there was anything amiss.

          The official election records for Florida show that there around 870,000 registered voters in Palm Beach County and only 600,000 voted – a voter turn out of
          69% not 148% as the email claimed. Turning to St. Lucie, there were about 175,000 registered voters and only 123,000 who voted – a voter turn out of about 70% not the 158% the email claimed. The website for St. Lucie’s Elections has a prominent note for the 2012 election that tells everyone that they had a two page ballot and that their system counted each page as a
          separate vote – i.e. you had to basically divide the total by 2 to get the real total of voters. The votes actually cast was 123,000 not the 247,000 the email falsely claimed.

          Turning to Ohio, everything said in the email deals with Wood County. According to the official records there were about 108,000 registered voters who cast about 61,000 votes. There were no precincts where Obama got 100% of the vote. Obama’s highest was 75% in one precinct while Romney’s was 70%. Romney got 46.89% of the vote. So much for the email’s lies that Obama got 108% of the vote, or that 106,000 people voted when there was only 98,000 eligible voters or that Obama got 100% of the vote in 21 districts. The idiot(s) who started these lies forgot that Wood County is home to Bowling Green State University.

          By the way, of the 15 elected officials for Wood County, 13 are Republican and only 2 are Democrats.

          Regarding the claim that 59 districts in Philadelphia that voted 100% for Obama. The precincts that did have 100% of the votes for Obama were ALL intercity minority areas and most of them also voted 100% for Obama in 2008. Why would anyone be surprised that
          minority voters would vote 100% for Obama just like white voters in some Utah precincts (districts) vote 100% for Romney?.

          The email was just repeating the junk that people were coming up with in an attempt to explain away Romney’s loss in the days immediately following the election.

          As far as your last paragraph, you really show how ignorant/mislead you really are. Not one word that you is true. There were 11 states that had photo votrer laws in effect. Obama won four of them, Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, and New Hampshire.

          While he was in office, President Bush spent over $70,000,000.00 dollars and fired several Assistant Attorney Generals in an attempt to prove the bogus “voter fraud” claims made by Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians. With over 300 million votes cast they were only able to bring about 86 cases, mostly against convicted felons for voting.

          • smilee

            Your confusing them with facts!! Thanks!

          • 5live5

            Suggest you look at the records of Cuyahoga county! In seven or eight precincts Romney got 1 or 2 votes which is statistically impossible!

        • smilee

          You cannot prove any of what you say and in fact it has already been proven wrong. Far right propaganda (your email and there are many) is the only place you will hear these lies. A picture ID only shows it is you if it is not forged and does nothing to say you are eligible to vote or a citizen as non citizens can get picture ID’s Indiana was the only state where a photo ID had to be shown in the last election. All the other ID laws that had been passed were put on hold by the courts. Your last paragraph is totally false and there is no proof of it. Just more far right propaganda. Voter ID was voted down in MN last election because MN saw though the BS about photo ID as it does nothing but cause hindrances to some people voting the education by VOTE no turned the polls from 87 % in favor when it was voted on in the legislature and it only got 45% in the election because we successfully communicated all the lies behind these lies as they do not do what you are told they will.. These laws are an ALEC model and their self stated goal when ALEC was formed in 1973 came right out and said that was their priority goal was to prevent people from voting as the GOP wins low turnout elections and this wound make winning a bigger reality for them. It took many years of their propaganda to get people to believe it but when the truth is clear to all they will not support it as MN proved..

      • smilee

        You cannot prove any of what you say and in fact it has already been proven wrong. Far right propaganda is the only place you will hear these lies.

      • smilee

        LIES, LIES and more LIES

    • Don 2

      Mitt Romney lost because he was a democrat light, instead of sticking with true conservative values. He lost much of his base because millions of them sat home, disappointed with both choices.

      • smilee

        When did atrue conservative values (as you call them) win the presidency. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GWB, Obama. Do you see one? Reason being they are a small minority of the total.

        • 5live5

          Ike was the closest. He made good strides on the economy and proved that the US COULD round up illegal Mexicans and deport them when he rounded up one million of them to insure the returning troops had jobs, unlike your hero ZEROBAMA!

  • Dave

    Please GOP, run Cruz… Ensure your defeat again…
    I do find it comical however that Conservatives made a whole industry on Obama’s citizenship when he was born in HI to and American woman. The HI newspapers ran the story of the birth, HI confirms the validity…
    But Cruz is eligible in their minds… But Cruz was born in Canada to an American woman…
    Hmmmm… Hypocrisy… thy name is Conservative.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are wishing that the circumstances of O’s birth were different but then you Leftists got what you wanted anyway by hook or by crook so why are you still bellyaching. This means that you know you pulled a fast one on the American people by O’s election and he is still a fraud in every possible way.
      Cruz is no more electable than O was but once a precedent was set the language twisting will begin to make him acceptable.

    • rick0857

      That doesn’t matter, either way you cut it THEY BOTH WERE BORN TO NON-CITIZEN FATHERS

      • Vigilant

        As was Chester A. Arthur, President.

        • JB

          His father was an immigrant, however when Chester was born, his father was a Citizen!

          • Vigilant

            Sorry, JB, that’s not true.

            Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829. His father was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

      • ChiefBoring

        Doesn’t matter. Their mothers were citizens. Therefore, they, and McCain, are natural born US cirtizens. Study, learn, VOTE!

    • http://socialsity.com/ LastGasp

      What proof do you have of obama’s birth in HI? A forged birth certificate? I’d bet that Cruz has a real one. Take your paid trolling elsewhere.

      • Dave

        Show Cruz’s BC LastGasp… Prove it.

        While your at it, prove the State of HI, and Honolulu newspapers are lying while you are at it… All the conspiracy theorists have been debunked.

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

        http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/07/joe_arpaios_new_birther_eviden.php

        So prove that Cruz has a valid BC. Put up or shut up.

        • Mike Butler

          I love how everyone believes that snopes is the ultimate word on everything. It is totally one sided liberal, bought and paid for by Georges Soros.

          • Dave

            Amazing how you can’t refute the finding of the investigation…

          • 5live5

            Snopes is owned by a man and his wife who are BOTH progressive liberal crap!

      • ChiefBoring

        Last, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born; his mother was a US citizen. That makes him a natural born citizen. He should go away because of his policies, not his birthplace. Being a birther just plays into the hands of his lackeys

        • http://socialsity.com/ LastGasp

          Yeah, you’re right. Easy to get carried away.

          • ChiefBoring

            True. Study, learn, VOTE!

        • Dave

          Bob Livingston is one of those birthers as is W.A.R… you better watch it…
          If only the past 5 years were on the merits of policy… we might be in a better place today… But its not what conservatives want.

          • 5live5

            Merits of policy?? you mean like targeting conservative groups on tax exempt status? Letting an ambassador and three Damn fine Marines die? running guns into the hands of the Cartels and killing two American citizens as well as numerous Mexican citizens?? That policy???

      • smilee

        Obama’s BC was certified by the state of Hawaii as being genuine and said his birth was recorded the week he was born.. Proof of that caliber cannot be challenged but by idiots, Cruz has a real one in Canada as that is where he was born and lived the first four years of his life.

    • Don 2

      The left will always tell you who they are most afraid of by the lengths to which they will go in attacking a potential GOP opponent. If Cruz would ensure a GOP defeat as you allege, then you would be supporting him as the GOP candidate, thereby ensuring a GOP defeat, instead of trying to keep him out as a candidate..

      This is the same reason the left still viciously attacks Sarah Palin. They’re still scared to death of her, and continue to attack her even though she has not announced a run for political office.

      The idea that a Democrat would tell the GOP who not to run, in order to help the GOP win, is knee-slapping political nonsense.

      • Dave

        Who is keeping him out??? I want him IN!!! Please Cruz… Run…
        Palin is an idiot, and she got as good as she gave Don. No use defending that quitter dolt who has no business near the WH. Palin is one of these most divisive bumpersticker politicians that I have ever seen. She makes that loon Bachmann look sane.

        • Don 2

          The only one who needs defending is Hussein Obama. That’s why you and the rest of your minions are here everyday, trying to defend the indefensible.

          I really get a kick out of the mere mentioning of Sarah Palin gets such a reaction from you libs. Thanks for proving my point!

          • Dave

            just like I do whenever Obama gets mentioned here… gets all you conservative loon’s panties in a bind.
            Except, Obama qualified for the job. Palin? Not so much…

          • Don 2

            “Except, Obama qualified for the job,” you say. Now that’s really funny. Hussein Obama, whose background consisted of being a community agitator, and short-term Ill. senator voting “present” on most everything, is all of a sudden qualified and an expert on everything form energy, to oil, defense, the environment, foreign relations, police procedures, self-defense laws, healthcare, etc. He wasn’t qualified to run an ice cream stand at a carnival.

            Hussein Obama is certainly going to go down in history as the worst president ever in the history of America, even beating out the likes of Jimmy Carter.

            Obama couldn’t even stand to watch the OBL raid by Seal Team 6, and instead was playing cards(Spades) during the raid. The man is a first-class coward!

          • smilee

            You Ignore that he was a lawyer. a professor and considered by his peers to be a constitutional scholar, WHY?? He did watch and listen when the seals where taking out Osama and there is numerous witnesses to that. You do a lot of lying sir.

          • Don 2

            Sorry Mr. Dufus, Obama played 15 or so games of spades with Reggie Love, WH photographer Pete Souza, and staffer Marvin Nicholson during the OBL raid. Are you calling Reggie a liar? You racist pig!

            What’s even funnier, remember the original WH story that Obama was playing golf?

          • smilee

            After he ordered the hit. yes he did other things but during the engagement on the ground he was in the situation room with many others listening to every word and if you dispute that then it is you who was not paying attention.

          • Don 2

            Do you mean when his boss Valerie finally managed to drag him into the situation room for a publicity photo shoot, and threw a presidential jacket on him to make him look presidential?

          • smilee

            NO!!!!!

          • Vigilant

            Most likely Leon Panetta ordered the hit. And that’s most likely why the Pentagon sent all of its records involving the raid to the CIA for protection.

          • smilee

            Panetta worked for Obama not the other way around . What a stupid statement.

          • Vigilant

            “Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

            “A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.”

            -From a White House insider.
            Read the rest at http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/03/leon-panetta-not-obama-issued-order-to-kill-bin-laden/

          • smilee

            You idiot, you will believe any propaganda sites words, there is no truth in that and you should know better. Obamba is the Commander and chief and Leon Panetta would never do anything so stupid as that, Only a fool would believe that garbage. There are many out there who will fabricate all kinds of things and do, to try and destroy this president so that is nothing new. The vast majority did not buy this type of garbage in 2012 and do not now. An insider,no a big a$$ed liar, Lie on turkey!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Vigilant

            Obama was never a professor…and you were never of normal intelligence.

          • smilee

            That is so funny, interesting but this past week on Jeopardy there was a contestant who told that his most regrettable moment was when he was taking a class from Obama and was given an invitation to dinner at Obama’s house and turned it down for something else. Everyone who know anything knows he was a professor.

          • Vigilant

            LOL! Now smilee’s “credible reference” is a Jeopardy contestant!

            I’ve taught MANY classes in my lifetime, and I’m not a professor, idiot. The word “professor” means something with which you have no clue.

            “Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.”
            Clinton campaign, 2008.

          • smilee

            It is well known and a fact he was a professor, that is not a secret. You can deny it all you like but that does nothing to change hat fact. Just thought i would throw the jeopardy thing in as it just happened this past week and the man took a course from Professor Obama at a college so laugh all you like. It does nothing but show you have no character.

          • 5live5

            He was NEVER a professor, He was a speaker only!

          • 5live5

            Uh OH, there’s a crisis! He has a vacation scheduled!!!

          • ChiefBoring

            Obama, a natural born citizen where ever he was born, was and is NOT competent for the job. He never held a real job, except in indoctrination or politics. Palin as Mayor of Wasilla had more qualifications than Obama, never mind her Governorship of Alaska. She did a good job there, and only resigned to relieve the State of defending her against vicious attacks by the left.

          • smilee

            A lawyer, a professor, a state senator, a US Senator are not real jobs??? Surly you jest,a small town major and gov who quit under heat, If she was innocent of the attacks she would have stayed and fought, she most likely was guilty as sin. She is an incompetent joke.

          • ChiefBoring

            BHO never really practiced law, was an adjunct professor, not tenured, voted “present” instead of engaging issues, and was a back bench Senator for what, two years? No, not real jobs in the marketplace. As I’ve explained before, Palin resigned to save the State of Alaska the expense of defending her against bogus charges. She was exonerated. You just keep on thinking of her as incompetent; that just shows your fear of her real value.

          • smilee

            Sure he practiced law his wife was his boss at one time in the law firm, I have no idea what you mean by “really practiced law” you either practice it or you do not! He was a professor and taught constitutional law and considered by his peers to by a scholar.He was both state and US senators and your spin on his State Senator means nothing as all senators hold the same position. Just your spin. Sort of tips you take on its head does it not. Palin was exonerated as she agreed to resign, so she is still guilty just not charged. I do not think of her as incompetent she has proven she is to the vast majority, this woman stand no chance what so ever in politics she is history and all washed up in that arena.

          • ChiefBoring

            His wife was his boss? How convenient! How many cases did he try? Who were his clients? Or did he spend all his time “communty organizing”? “All senators hold the same position”? Are you not familiar with the term back bencher? I don’t spin anything. That’s the method of the democrats. It was Palin’s idea to resign, for the reasons given. If there had been any smoke, the dems would have fanned the flames. It was not to their advantage that she resign. You just keep on whistling past the graveyard…She’s not finished by any means.

          • smilee

            Spin, Spin and more Spin

          • ChiefBoring

            No spin; questions…

          • Vigilant

            ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS, IDIOT!

          • Vigilant

            ChiefBoring, I learned a long time ago that asking smilee for credible references was a fruitless effort. He’s got a rich fantasy life and that’s the extent of his knowledge.

          • ChiefBoring

            Thanks, Vigilant. I have concluded the same thing. It’s akin to talking to a wall. Best wishes to you. Fair winds and following seas.

          • smilee

            WE BOTH KNOW SHE IS, YOU WILL NOT ADMIT IT I WILL!!!

          • ChiefBoring

            If you mean Michelle is still his boss, I agree with you! LOL

          • smilee

            Your jealous, I can tell

          • ChiefBoring

            Jealous? Of what, pray tell?

          • smilee

            WE BOTH KNOW SHE IS, YOU WILL NOT ADMIT IT I WILL!!!

          • Don 2

            Smilee, did you forgot the ten of thousands of Palin e-mails that you guys went through and tried s-o-o-o-o-o hard to find something, anything, evil and sinister in their contents, and you couldn’t?

          • smilee

            Smilee, did you forgot the ten of thousands of Palin e-mails that you guys

            Is that meant to include me?? They found it, the far right propaganda mill says they didn’t but propaganda is in the business of lying.

          • Don 2

            Well smilee, since you are on the far left, why don’t you enlighten us all and tell us exactly what they found in Sarah Palin’s e-mails? C’mon Mr. Mouth, back up your B.S.

          • smilee

            You ignore all the other facts that would have convicted her. I f you feel so strongly she is innocent why not take it upon yourself to prove me wrong. Innocent people also do not run off with their tail between their legs, she coped out and that is not to admirable.

          • smilee

            The sad truth is that our reactions are all true!

        • ChiefBoring

          Boy, Dave, you must REALLY be afraid of Sarah Palin!

          • Dave

            Absolutely… her grasp on the issues is scary. Lying that often about so much… maybe you want a dim bulb in the WH… you guys did vote for GWB twice… I prefer smart to “folksy”

          • ChiefBoring

            You’re proving my point, Dave. Troll on back to HuffPost.

          • Don 2

            Yes Dave, please tell us what Palin lied about. Then, I’ll tell you what Obama lied about, and we can match results, O.K.?

    • Mike Butler

      As much as I hate Obama, his birth certificate is a moot point as the fact that his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth makes him a Natural born citizen, no matter where he was born.

      • Vigilant

        Absolutely correct.

      • TexRancher

        Until his citizenship is surrendered to accept citizenship in another country and has NEVER BEEN RESTORED!

        In fact, the INS and Airline manifests for the week surrounding his birth date (?) have both been scrubbed so there is no record of him being brought into this country (Can you say “government Black Bag job?) and Hawaii allowed Certificates of live births for kids born out side of Hawaii.

        As for Hawaii proving anything about his birth, NO supporting documents have ever been produced and Gov. Linda Lingle’s word means nothing without them!

  • TexRancher

    Ted Cruz deserves no more scrutiny until we get the answers to Obama’s eligibility! Full and complete vetting which is long overdue!

    • smilee

      Ah, but the difference being Obama was born in this country and Cruz was not and Cruz not live in the US until he was four. Both their mothers were US citizens and neither of their fathers were. Cruz cannot be president if you take the words of the far right propaganda mills which have said and still do say Obama is not eligible. If they were right then of course Cruz too would not be eligible the only difference being we know Cruz was not born in the US and we know Obama was. To the birtheres I say You cannot have it both ways.

      • TexRancher

        So far, not one valid document has been found to support that Obama was born anywhere in this country. This by a professional law investigative team plus even Obama Flower Child buddy the former Gov. of Hawaii Ambercrombie who went after it with a search warrant and came up empty after he shot his mouth off! So far, EVERY document Obama has released has been proven false by various experts including a document specialist that works for a law firm THAT REPRESENTS OBAMA! His name is Hayes and he has an established reputation!

        • smilee

          Your so full of lies!! The verification came from the state of Hawaii and it verified that the BC Obama printed on his web site is the same as the one Hawaii verified. Factcheck.org got permission to view the BC from the state of Hawaii Viewed it and took many pictures of it and some at angles that clearly show the Hawaii State seal embedded in it which proves it is a genuine BC the only type considered valid today. You can find the letter released by Hawaii by googling it and go on the the factcheck.org website and see the pictures of it and their explanation as to how they reached that conclusion. No one other than factcheck.org has had permission to view actual HI records. Your source is totally bogus.

        • smilee

          Your so full of lies!! The verification came from the state of Hawaii and it verified that the BC Obama printed on his web site is the same as the one Hawaii verified. Factcheck.org got permission to view the BC from the state of Hawaii Viewed it and took many pictures of it and some at angles that clearly show the Hawaii State seal embedded in it which proves it is a genuine BC the only type considered valid today. You can find the letter released by Hawaii by googling it and go on the the factcheck.org website and see the pictures of it and their explanation as to how they reached that conclusion. No one other than factcheck.org has had permission to view actual HI records. Your source is totally bogus.

          • TexRancher

            If this BC is so valid, why is Factcheck the only one allowed to see it? I’ll stay with The Cold Case Posse and their results as I trust these professionals more than one report from any outfit that claims they’re the only ones who are experts. Same with Snopes. They’ve been exposed as liberal sympathyzers!
            BTW How did Factcheck get access when the former Governor of Hawaii couldn’t?

          • smilee

            Does not sound like you went to factcheck.org and looked at the pictures or read what they did and how, When you do then we can have an intelligent conversation and you ignored the letter the State of Hawaii issued. Your source has never seen the original or the records so no matter how professional they are that is no assurance they arenot lying. especially when the head of it is Sheriff Joe well know for his deceitful ways that only a fool would believe. Sucker

          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            Sheriff Joe is not the only one who says it is a fake! In fact the company who Obama uses to make sure the info coming into the White House is not a fake document did the investigating on this BC. Obama’s own people (Mr. Hayes is his name I believe)that he uses has said it was a fake, a very poor fake!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=alVzyfptF80
            OR
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw

          • Vigilant

            Doesn’t matter where in the world Obama was born, he became a citizen at birth by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. That’s the law.

            Immigration law in the US clearly states the following:

            “Children born overseas to married parents:

            “The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents:

            If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has been “physically present” in the U.S. before the child’s birth for a total period of at least five years, and at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent’s fourteenth birthday.”

          • Bob666

            Yo Vigilant,
            Why do they continue to beat a dead horse?

            Give Shadow my regards.

          • Vigilant

            Good question, Bob. The law is clear, has been clear for some time, with ample legal opinion to back it up. My own personal experience testifies to the “natural born” status of my sons, and Chester A. Arthur’s father was a non-citizen.

            I am left only with the conclusion that people hate Obama so much they’re willing to defy even the facts to remove him from office. Even to the extent of citing a SCOTUS case that had nothing to do with, and which the court rendered no opinion on, the situation present in Obama’s and my own case.

            Shadow gladly accepts your greeting and says, “woof” in return.

          • Bob666

            Yo Vigilant,

            I believe that you are correct on the “hate Obama so much they’re willing to defy even the facts”, but it amazes me that people don’t get the fact that making statements like that only hurts their argument and negates the legitimacy of the current situation.

            In essence-it drive rational people away and serves to reinforce Obama’s position.

            It really does take all kinds of people to make the world!

          • smilee

            Your so full of it, all malarkey

          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            A certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.

            “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”

            Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”

            “In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he said in the report.

          • smilee

            It is all irrelevant as he was born in Hawaii and his birth is recorded there as such and that is no longer in question. What is actually recorded is what counts and it reflects what actually happened . It is settled, this is dead horse your beating. Your post is based on propaganda and has no factual support. This is his opinion and experts disagree in courts on the same issue every day so I’m not impressed with your post.

          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            The only dead horse here is you. But all causes have some idiots like you! I can tell you support him and that is you right, just as not supporting him is mine. This firm, who made the statement that it is phony, works for Obama! This man, and the firm he works for, is one of Obama’s experts! But the day is coming when your president will be impeached! Here are the articles of Impeachment! You obviously did not even open the links. Just don’t be surprised when he is removed from office! No propaganda here, just facts! ANYONE who knows anything about the computer can check it out on their own computer after copying it off the W.H. site! So before opening your pie-hole again and spewing your lies, you should at least check out the facts. Copy and paste the BC to your computer and check and see if it is for real. The video even tells you how, in case you are not familiar with how the software works!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_w0SVOwWGjw

            http://www.knowthelies.com/node/8922

          • smilee

            The only ones that have seen the records outside Obama are factcheck.org and state employees’s of Hawaii, Hawaii will only issue copies to the person certified in the birth certificate. They got special permission because of the dispute and with Obama’s approval. The state has verified that his birth is recorded there and that it was recorded there the week he was born. The only copy that is certified and valid is one issued by the state of Hawaii and it must have the state seal on it certifying that it is a valid statement. Copies made of it will not show that nor will downloads from the net but actual photographs made at different angles will and factcheck.org was allowed to photograph it and made several photographs at different angles that clearly show the seal which is necessary for it to be valid and accurate in its content. The photographs can be seen on. factcheck.org. All these copies you talk about are not certified copies from the State of Hawaii so they are all irrelevant to the debate and prove nothing. No one can look at them and draw any valid conclusion but of course they can claim they can but they cannot. I did open the links and they are nothing more than propaganda as they do not tell the truth. Obama will never be impeached but even if he was he would not be convicted. I think the GOP learned their lesson from impeaching Clinton on false grounds and will not make that mistake gain unless they want to pay a terrible political price. Dream all you like on it sweetie but it is one dream that will never come true. You are beating a dead horse as this issue is settled. So is the fact that he natural born citizen as the court ruled in Indiana in 2009 and it was not appealed to a higher court so the ruling stands. These are both nonsense issues, fully settled and over and done with. Beat the horse if yo like but it will never come back to life.

          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            We only have what Obama posted on the WH site. Hawaii has never found the original in the books! And will not let anyone view the microfilm to check if in fact it is legit! That one has been proven to be fake by the firm that Obama uses to verify documents!

          • smilee

            There is a letter of verification from the state of Hawaii, the pictures of the Certified Birth Certificate on factcheck.org and their explanation of their research and methods of research. You cannot download the one from Obama’s site and validate that copy you need the real copy to do that. Yes Obama firm verified that they were fake but that was not the certified copies but the fake ones floating out there and there are many, You certainly are ignorant of how birth records are kept. When a birth is recorded it is from a form submitted for recording and then it is recorded in into their records usually a book at that time now it is electronic in most places and once recorded it is a part of the permanent record of you birth and the state can make certification of that at any time and they did for Obama and they made one for factcheck.org to view and to photograph. They did find the original form and did make a copy of it which they only did at the request of Obama as this is not the certified and legal copy just the form submitted to the records office for purposes of recording it in the official record. They do not use this as the certified copy of your birth. factcheck;org has seen it and a certified copy and the state published a letter verifying that it is all there and properly recorded and legal. I do not know where you get your information but it is false information that has been fully refuted as false. Clearly you have not checked it out on factcheck.org whose researchers saw what you say they could not find. If you want to believes something bad enough I guess any BS will work to convince you. Independent of Obama, factcheck.org and the state of Hawaii fully disagree with you and have the facts to support them you have nothing but propaganda.

          • Debbie Hogan Tate
          • smilee

            None of your garbage applies to this argument, it is only smut and I guess your a purveyor of it

          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            Well here is some smut that is verifiable!
            A certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.

            “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”

            Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”

            “In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he said in the report.

          • smilee

            It does not verify a thing it is 100% Bull!!

      • Debbie Hogan Tate

        Obama was born not born in the USA! And not in Hawaii!

        Do a little reading here!

        http://www.tomatobubble.com/presidentpsycho.html

      • Debbie Hogan Tate

        They KEY word here is “both”!

        The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it isthe law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
        Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
        Anyone born inside the United States *

        Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

        Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as oneparent has lived in the U.S.

        Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

        • smilee

          I agree with all you say here, I believe both Cruz and Obama both meet eligibility. My point is the birthers cannot argue one way with Obama and another with Cruz.

          • Debbie Hogan Tate

            Any one born outside the United States, BOTH of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. His father was not a US national and neither was Cruz’s

            You missed my point!

          • smilee

            I did miss part of your point but a natural born citizen only needs one parent that is a citizen if that parent lived in this country before giving birth. That was the conclusion of the Courts in Indiana when it ruled Obama was a natural born citizen and the decision referenced President Arthur as precedent whom also had only one parent that was a citizen and was believed to be born in Canada. His father was an Irish Citizen.

  • carl_AF

    I believe the CNN is correct in their opinion of Senator Cruz’s eligibility for president. And as far as it goes for President Obama and his eligibility I feel good that I held a mlitary top secret clearance because I passed a background check that our president could not pass without a lot of explanation. He was given his clearance because he had the votes from people that evidently were not concerned about knowing his ‘WHOLE’ past. He said he was eligible and they believed him.

    • rick0857

      Correct, I believe it took about six months to get my Top Secret clearance and I know for a fact President Vacation could not get the clearance I had. The FBI, NSA and others interviewed neighbors and teachers going back into my childhood as far as the fourth grade. They talked to everyone who had ever known me or I had ever associated with.
      I hope that as far as super sensitive information goes I hope that the NSA, FBI and Military have him on a short list need to know basis.

  • 1Prop

    If his father was a Cuban refugee, there may be a loophole. The US gives refugees all the privileges of citizenship as soon as they arrive. That being said, if you consider Obama, McCain, Romney’s father – can’t we find politicians who were actually born within our borders and can prove it?
    The GOP does not need this contoversy overshadowing a candidate. Rand Paul is probably the smart way to go. As long as they don’t pick RINO-in-Chief Chris Christie.

  • Vigilant

    “The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerstat [sic] clearly defined a “natural born citizen” as a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” It differentiated “natives or natural born citizens” from “aliens or foreigners.” So as the son of only one U.S. citizen and as one born outside the United States, Cruz is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.”

    Wrong. Minor v. Happersett did not DEFINE citizenship as such. The case doesn’t even have anything to do with presidential qualifications. It dealt with the women suffrage issue. “The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.” (Wikipedia)

    “The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Under the common law, according to the court, “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.” The court observed that some authorities “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.” (Wikipedia)

    Minor v. Happersett has no bearing on eligibility to become president, and has NEVER been cited as precedent.

    Immigration law in the US clearly states the following:

    “Children born overseas to married parents:

    “The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents:

    If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever had a residence in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth

    If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child’s birth

    If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has been “physically present” in the U.S. before the child’s birth for a total period of at least five years, and at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent’s fourteenth birthday.” http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

    Bottom line: any attempt to disqualify Cruz is doomed to failure in the courts. He became a citizen by birth. CNN’s Constitutional experts are correct.

    P.S. The Nineteenth Amendment rendered Minor v. Happersett null and void.

    P.P.S Minor v. Happersett was decided in 1875. Chester A. Arthur, whose father was not a citizen, took office in 1881. Obviously, Minor v. Happersett was not considered precedent by those who claimed that Arthur was constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of vice president.

    • rick0857

      And anybody who is an approved member can log into Wikipedia and EDIT anything the site has to offer. If you want to know what Minor v. Happersett says you’ll need to dig it out of the archives in the library of congress. Anyone who would or could take Wikipedia as Gospel is either a fool or too lazy to do any real research.
      Saying Wikipedia is LEGITIMATE document source is the same as saying that Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton and the rest of the clown crew at MSNBC ARE journalists rather than CHEERLEADERS for the administration.

      • Vigilant

        Go ahead and knock Wikipedia all you want. Your advice applies as well to Mr. Livingston, who relies on a website and not archival copies of the decision.

        I have two children who were born in Europe of a non-citizen mother, and they were citizens at birth. You want evidence of citizenship by birth go to http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

        The law is clear: Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen (CRBA, or Form FS-240) makes a child a natural born citizen in the eyes of the law. Hundreds of thousands of children have been born to members of the military, consular services and embassy staff, and US private citizens overseas. You would make them ineligible to be president because you don’t like the idea of Cruz being president.

        Gotta come up with a better reason than that.

        P.S. Your only answer is to disparage Wikipedia without offering anything counter to what I said. Saul Alinsky would be proud of you.

      • Bob666

        Yo Rick,

        While Wikipedia is a very user friendly site and does have some well formatted information, you are correct about the fact that anyone approved by Wikipedia can edit the content & information on the site. I teach an occasional class in economics & construction management and do not accept Wikipedia as a source from students for that reason. I am not alone in that practice as most top colleges and universities do not allow Wikipedia as a legitimate source as well.

        All you really have to look at is the attached report regarding Sarah Palin and Wikipedia to understand why. Again, it is a good site and does contain some good information, but I chuckle when I see people use Wikipedia to prove their arguments.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/sarah-palin-fans-fight-over-paul-revere-wikipedia-page/2011/06/06/AGxtzHKH_blog.html

  • Vigilant

    “Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen but a father who was a Cuban citizen. His father did not become a naturalized American citizen until 2005.”

    He is eligible to become president by virtue of his mother’s citizenship.

    And Rubio is eligible by virtue of the 14th Amendment..

    • Jeff

      I tend to agree with you, but the 14th Amendment does not specifically say “natural born citizen” so the “controversy” will continue. The 14th Amendment is the only clear statement we have concerning who is a citizen under questionable circumstances.

      What is interesting in the Minor case is that the Court sets out two examples of “natural” citizens at page 167-168: those whose parents were citizens and those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. Of the first group, the Court says “it was never doubted” such children were citizens. Of the second group, it said: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

      Clearly, the Court is speaking historically and is in no way ruling on the issue. Then, just in case anyone didn’t understand that all of this discussion was preparatory and in no way a holding, the Court states:
      “FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS.”

      That is the Court’s way of saying we are not ruling on the issue of who is a natural born citizen!

      As a matter of logic, it’s like saying a person who weighs over 400 pounds is clearly obese. Some say a 300 pound person is also obese. Since the person in question weighs 450, we do not need to address the controversy. One could not then say the Court ruled that only people who weigh over 400 pounds are obese.

      • Vigilant

        Good points.

        • smilee

          WOW we agree on something!!

          • Vigilant

            Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I’ll accept your homage anyway.

  • dave ussery

    Hell technicly I’m not a”REAL” citizen, was born on an air force base in oklahoma US govmt property! not considered part of the state-ya know like area 51…………………..

    • Dave Suchy

      unless both of your parents were there in service to the country and citizens…you can be born anywhere if your parents are citizens sent there in service to the USA.

  • Dennis Patrick

    “alien currently occupying the People’s House”? Oh, Bobby – still tilting at those windmills. He’s legal, he won the elections, get over it. You do a disservice to fighting his AGENDA when you play these silly games.

    • DalasKnight

      You may as well get used to it Dennis, conservatives and libertarians will fight his agenda till he’s gone!!!

    • Dave Suchy

      I would like to point out to you the first person to point out Obama’s disqualification was a DEMOCRAT. The former PA state Attorney General. The first politician to point it out? HILLARY CLINTON.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      What if this “alien” currently occupying the WH is an “Agenda” to set a precedent for future where the UN(?) will determine who will be allowed to be president of this country based on their criteria.

  • DalasKnight

    I would be willing to bet he is as eligible as the clown we have in office now!!

  • Jimmy the Greek

    The dems had theres so now we get ours , whats fair is fair , then after our man gets his eight years in we can go back it doing things the way they should have been done all along .

    • Ruben Escobar

      And I will bet our will do a trillion time better than theirs.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        For what reason do you want Cruz, because he is one of your own kind. I have lived in enough places around the country where this “He/She is one of ours so they must be good and they will take care of their own” is practiced. Horrible people have gotten into politics and have done enough damage to the Constitution.
        Have any of you read what is going on in certain areas of TX as in Laredo, San Antonio, Houston or have you paid attention to what goes in Chicago, Illinois or Detroit,Michigan or San Francisco, California.

        • Jimmy the Greek

          I am Greek not Cuban , it was meant as like minded .

  • Sam

    I like Ted Cruz but let’s stick to the Constitution like we should. Obama’s reign has proved disasterous because the Constitution isn’t being followed. Instead, obama is trying to bring in communism which is a proven failed ideology. If the politician don’t qualify for president under our Constitution, they should not be allowed to run. There are plenty of other places that we need a good man in office.

    • Jeff

      I hate Ted Cruz, but you guys are simply wrong about Minor v Happersett. The case involved a woman’s right to vote long before the 19th Amendment. The Court stated (didn’t “find”) that she was clearly a citizen as both her parents had been citizens when she was born. The Court did not “hold” that it was necessary for both parents to be citizens at birth in order for someone to be a “natural born citizen.” That term has never actually been defined. I believe you’ll find that the 14th Amendment’s language will be used by the Courts if the issue ever comes before the Supreme Court. I think Cruz is eligible to be President though I hope it never actually happens.
      There have been other candidates whose status was questionable – John McCain and Romney’s father were both born outside the U.S. but no one really raised the issue because their parents were citizens. Of course, in the Romney case, his parents were citizens living in Mexico because they were on the run due to the bigamy laws.
      Read the case as a whole and you’ll understand the difference between a holding and obiter dictum. An opinion can contain many statements unrelated to the issue in the case, but they’re only holdings if they directly relate to the issue in the case. The lady in Minor just wanted to vote; she wasn’t running for President.

      • billyjeff2

        Wow! finally a post by someone who actually read/understands the Minor case! You are a breath of fresh air in a sea of willful ignorance and downright hate, Jeff. Kudos!

        • smilee

          DITTO!!

      • Jimmy the Greek

        Now you pealed the scab back opem on somthing we screwed up in the early 1900 , one of the bigest screw ups we made in this country was to let woman vote , from that time on the country went to hell ,

        • Jeff

          I dare you to say that in front of your wife or your daughter! But seriously, do you think the country was a better place for most people to live in in 1920 than it is today?

          • Jimmy the Greek

            Yes it was , and i do say that to my daughter an my wife when she was alive , When woman got the vote the country starting going liberal , woman vote with there hart not the brain ,

          • Bob666

            Well Jimmy,
            you continue to boldly go where few have any intentions to go.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            We should be more like the midel eastern countrys when it comes to woman and familey honer And we should be permited to have a min of 4 wifes

          • Bob666

            Well Jimmy,
            I have a wife who practices law and and a daughter who follows her fathers foot steps as a civil engineer who would disagree with you and both are very successful in their careers and both are also very good mothers.

            I personally don’t have a problem with smart driven and intelligent women-actually, I like having them around.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            I never sead they should not be schooled or or be lawers , they should just not hold public office or vote , hell if i had 4 wifes three would hold down good jobs , and one would stay home to cook , clean , fetch whatever i called for and service the master of the house , untill the others got home , hell i would never have to work , all i would have to do is run around riding my motorcycles and party . And when the others got home they could get out to the shop and polish my car and motorcycles , My father was from the old country , he had my mother and his girlfrend living in the same house when i was 5 years old , however when ever he left to go to his diner he had to take one of them with him , because they would try to kill each other if he was not there to stop them , i can rember days when he had to beat them bouth just so they would be nice so he could watch a little TV that was back in the mid 50s , he was from a small island he never went to school his father was a fisherman, him to untill he got a job on a greek ship , that is how he got to NYC , my mother was born here but her people were fron greece ,I never learned english untill i went to school , lol

    • NickCzudy

      Sam. You right wing,, love to use the Communism mantra. Show me one place that Obama is trying to bring in communism? He is more pro business than Mitt was. He was just not for giving the 1% more tax favors and loop holes to make it easier than they already have it. He is trying to level the playing field for middle class business.

      Is it, as in most civilized First World countries that the sick and poor are helped, that this makes him a communist in your eyes? haha. You have to do better than that.

      The Right wing under the bubble will buy this, but no one else will. Basically it is not true and one reason that Americans have stopped listening to the Right Wing, is that you seem to live in another dimension in a parallel world. You love to use words that really apply to the Right Wing, but you think that if you say it enough it will stick.
      Well it won’t stick and you can say it all you want, and most Americans know it for what it is. Using the communist word will just let us know that you are uneducated and weak minded and listen to the braying of the extreme right pundits. You really need to think on your own.
      regards
      Nick Cz

      • JanelleHumbert

        You need to get out more.

        • NickCzudy

          Hi Janelle.

          You are absolutely right. I do need to get out more. But I have yet to find a Right Wing zealot to answer my questions.

          I know it is just hateful rhetoric. You guys are angry. Ok I get it. But what better ideas do you have? You had 8 years to really screw up America before Obama. You really did a good job.
          You have fought tooth and nail to obstruct any positive steps to improve the economy. What do you have to offer? The GOP politicians need to stop taking money from the lobbies and make decisions for the middle class.

          I see nothing but lies, anger, and evil. It scares me.
          Cruz for president would really be bad news for everyone.

          • Bob666

            Yo Nick,

            Been a while since we have seen you. I agree with you on Cruze, but for different reasons. If the GOP wants to win, they need to distance the party away form the Tea Party. McCain lost because he tried to appease the Tea Party and that drove moderate Americans (dems/reps) away.

            At the end of the day, republicans would have voted for Fido if Fido was running against Obama in 2012. It really did not matter if they liked Fido or not-Fido was/is not Obama.

            Moderate Americans found Palin to be scary and bizarre at best and few saw her as a credible VP candidate. From my point of view, Chris Christie is the only one in the GOP who would have broad appeal to most American voters.

            While I realize that most on this web site believe that Chris Christie is not the right guy, I will remind all of you that WAR predicted a Romney win by a land slide.

            I would like to vote for a good GOP candidate (as the majority of my votes have been for the GOP) but there has not been a good GOP candidate put up for president in over 16 years.

          • NickCzudy

            Hey Bob,. Nice to hear from you again. Over the last few months I have not been receiving emails to notify me that I have a reply to a post. I am not sure why this has happened. I have some conspiracy theories, but I cannot say for sure.
            Cruz and the far Right tea-party candidates to not have a hope of being elected. The ones that might be good candidates will not make it past the primaries.
            Of the bunch that are being talked about, Chris Christie has the best chance of winning. How much he has to cow tail it to the Far Right, will be an interesting outcome. He might not even make it through the primaries, unless the silent majority of conservatives come out to vote in the primaries.
            Last election the very best candidate was John Huntsman,
            He was intelligent, reserved, conservative, presidential and was not prone to tell lies like most politicians. He would have been the only one to succeed. He would have been a great president. I wonder if the GOP Congress would have given him as much trouble as they did to Obama.
            All of the obstruction and negative vibes and so called scandals are simply from pure hate. It is not from his actions, as Obama, has done well with the economy, security, world politics, and healthcare. America would have done much better if there had been some co-operation from Congress.
            I am afraid if the Far Right keep on the way they are going. They will lose again. The blatant voter suppression is so obvious that it will back fire and even alienate more of the independents. The GOP will not get votes if they are perceived to lie and cheat to win elections. Then they are using the dirtiest tricks to re-district to ensure future power even though they will not have a majority. It is a sad state of affairs.
            Wayne Allen Root, does not have the intelligence to make a real prediction. He is just catering to the right by saying positive things that will give hope when there is none. the right wing pundits will have to learn to believe the media’s experts and polls like Nate Silver of the New York Times or PPP polls. Right wing pundits that do gut-feeling type polls are not to be trusted. The tend to say what the party wants to hear. It is not based on accurate polls.
            So my gut feeling is that Hillary will run and will beat who ever the Right wing opponent is. Also the house will fall back into a democratic majority due to the worst ever congress.
            Best regards
            Nick Czudy

          • Jimmy the Greek

            I think the tea party people are no were far enouf to the right , If there real right wing they would meet a beer joints and after the meeting all go down to the liberal partys place and bust the place up and kick there arses .

          • Jimmy the Greek

            666 were you droped on your head at birth ? Christie ??? you must live in the north east , no one in the south or texas would vote for him just because he is for gun control if for no other reason .

          • Bob666

            Well Jimmy,
            I live in the south-Florida, a very red state that (much to my surprise) went blue in the last election. Keep believing that most Americans want someone from the GOP that is ultra-conservative-the real math does not back you up.

            While you might have a point about Ga, AL & Tx-the rest of the country would appear to disagree with you.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            South Florida is a realy not part of the south , to many of the chosen from the north east states moved there and screwed the place up trying to make it like were they came from , then the Cubans finished the job i was there in Hialeah around two mo. ago , The best thing that could happen would be a 200′ wall of water washing from east to west , from St Augustine south wash every thing into the gulf , That would be the fix for that place , Hell they dont even speek english there .

          • Bob666

            Wow Jimmy,
            You are just one multi-cultural guy who embraces diversity are you not? I travel the state and have for years. The Cubans that you seem to love so much (about a third of my neighbors) are hard core republicans. Yes, there is a Caribbean flair in south-east Florida, but SW Florida is more transient from the northeast and staunch GOP or European.

            North Florida is about as red a state as you will find and that goes from Jacksonville to Pensacola. The Bottom line is; the TEA party has really not taken hold in many places in Central Florida and carried Obama in the last election. Remember, Florida is one of the top five states that can make or break a presidential election.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            I am not a tea party person . I am way to the right of that bunch , i like Cruz because i think he would be a good presedent

          • Bob666

            Well Jimmy,
            A lot can happen between now and 2016, but if I were a betting man-it will be Christie-Clinton and I think is could be a good race. If the GOP nominates someone like Cruz-you had better get use to the term “President Clinton”.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            Better to go down fighting than to just give up , Christie is a Pice O S , he worked as a D A and we all know what liers they are , And he is for gun control , if that is the ticket i well not vote

          • Bob666

            Well Jimmy,

            I guess that you had better get prepared “to go down fighting”. The American public does not agree with you.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            Multiculturalism was the down fall of Rome ,

          • Phil

            I’m offended,there is no moderate party. I think there are extremes in both parties and whoever gets the most groups , and gives the most candy gets elected. Really a brilliant strategy . They all make it seem important and it’s just greed for power.

          • Jimmy the Greek

            WE don’t need no dam moderates , that are the ones that got us were we are now !

          • smilee

            The good part about Cruz as the candidate is that he cannot win in Nov 16, doubtful the GOP will nominate him for that reason.

      • Phil

        If you believe all people , the 99% should receive welfare from the government, ( we’re 1/2 way there now , ) ,. and you don’t want to include the 1% , then tax realistically , tax only the 1% —and see what that gets you , everyone on their own and no government . Hmm. Maybe we would have to start over.

        • smilee

          Now 53% are being taxes the rest do not make enough money to pay taxes. most welfare recipients in today’s world also have jobs and that is because the 1% do not pay them enough to pay taxes. US Corporations at least on the stock markets should have to refund to the government all monies their employees get in welfare. That would be fair to all

        • Jimmy the Greek

          I like the idea of everyone on there own with no goverment , that would thin the herd , lol

      • Blistered

        People like yourself that are so enamered with someone who doesn’t know anything about creating Jobs and don’t compare him to Mitt as he would fail miserably – I’m not a Mitt Fan but in buisness he is highly successful and the Fraud is just that – he has fed his cronies with Billions of dollars to front so called Green Buisness and each and every one to date has failed – such as the Chevy Volt , two or three Wind projects etc. He spends money like a Drunken Sailer – flying his Dog specifically to join his family on Vacation – He doesn’t have funds to keep the White House Tours open but he can spend Millions on vacation – 100 – million just on the African Tour where he was rejected – he supports muslims such as Al Quiada – (which we have spent millions to terminate) by supplying weapons to fight Syria’s leader – Only the President can issue a Stand Down Order – so who would you think refused to assist our Ambassador in Ben Gazi? Do you honestly believe the IRS made up the issues they are facing without his knowledge? If so your a fool – How’s the Fraud working out for America – he plays with the Job Numbers to show 7.4% unemployment – how do you explain the number of workers who have given up working – how do you think the welfare roll keeps getting larger – you think maybe it’s because the Jobs market is shrinking? You need to return to your Fairy Tales and when reality hits you I hope it doesn’t cause to much Consternation for you and yours.

        • smilee

          Managing a government and managing a business requires to very different set of skills, most business men do not make good politicians as they are primarily only interested in business interests and not the good of the country as a whole. It takes time to clean up the mess he inherited just Like Katrina, that still is not 100% this will not be either for at least another five years. Your expectations of Obama must mean you think he can perform miracles and with the GOP obstacle course it is amazing anything has gotten down but we are better off now than in 2009 when he took office.

    • smilee

      How is the Constitution not being followed, He has won the cases he has argued before the supreme court with the biggy being Obamacare. The court has not said that so where is your fact to support your BS

  • Bill Toohey

    What is the big problem here? It’s simple. If he is not a “natural born citizen” he can’t be President. Where’s the beef?

    • Jeff

      Read the case and tell me where “natural born citizen” is specifically defined.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

      • Vigilant

        It was not defined. It merely used the most restrictive interpretation of it. Minor was a US citizen by virtue of her birth to two US citizen parents. It was never in doubt that she was a citizen.

        Since this was not in doubt, the court had no business in, nor did it engage in, widening the case and declaring any inclusive definition of “natural born.” In fact, the the decision reads, in part, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

        Happersett is not quoted as any legal precedent anywhere with respect to defining natural born citizenship.

        Once again, two of my sons were born in the Netherlands in Dutch hospitals. Their mother is a Dutch citizen. Both sons became US citizens at birth by virtue of my citizenship.

        I have a State Dept. form for each that reports the birth abroad of a US citizen. Both sons are eligible to run for president.

    • Ruben Escobar

      You probably voted for Obama. Where is my cerveza?

  • http://nolp.blogspot.com/ davidfarrar

    The fact that a definition of a ‘natural born’ Citizen, in Art. II, §1, cl. 4., is missing from the US Const. wasn’t an oversight, or a simple laps in judgement. The founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. knew perfectly well what a ‘natural’ born subject was before the American revolution. After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. It is ‘as sovereigns’ then we must now look to find the proper definition of the enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” inserted into Art. II, §1, cl. 4.

    As sovereigns all then, our children will inherit their sovereignty from their father (partus sequitur patrem), as natural law dictates. As sovereigns, they will also be ‘natural born subjects’ wherever their birth occurs, again, as natural law dictates.

    This definition then of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen was reinforced by the definition provided in the first Naturalization Act of 1790. Being the first after the US Const. was ratified only a few short months earlier, most scholars see this definition as the only closest to the definition the delegates to the constitutional convention had in their mind when they unanimously adopted the phrase into the US Const

    ex animo

    davidfarrar

    • Vigilant

      By your definition of “sovereign.” Chester A. Arthur would never have become president.

      • http://nolp.blogspot.com/ davidfarrar

        Chester Arthur, as you know, was not elected to the presidency, but to the vice-presidency.

        But to answer your question, No, he was not an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizen. However, as we have seen with Obama, once in power, inditing information have a way of disappearing.

        We know he lied twice about his father US citizenship status during his political career, and had his all his personal papers burned after his death.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • Don 2

    Interesting, five PLD community agitators(Alex, mark, Jeff, Doc Sarvis, and Dave), all assigned to the same article; to protect their favorite community agitator(Obama), and go after Ted Cruz. Clearly, the left is afraid of Cruz.

  • NickCzudy

    The left is not afraid of Cruz. If that is what the GOP come up with to be the savior of America, then right wing, go nuts. I do believe that the majority of Americans have a brain and the GOP will lose like never before. The party will implode and there will be no tears shed. Americans are not insane enough to elect Cruz on his platform.
    Why elect some one to govern America who does not believe in Government?
    We will have Hillary for another 8 years. There will be a DEM majority in the house and senate and finally laws will be passed for the good of all Americans.
    Salvation at last.. haha
    warmest regards
    Nick Czudy

    • vanderfk

      “Why elect some one to govern America who does not believe in Government?” Come on, get real. It was done twice, in 2008 and 20012.

    • Dr Moon

      Obama doesn’t even believe in America. He’s trying to turn us into another Muslim Nation, but you liberals are so stupid, you allow him to do whatever he wants. Obama has taken the Bill of Rights and burned them, we no longer have the right to where we live, what we drive, where we can go, who we can speak with, what we can eat, what doctor to see, and hes trying to take away our only means of defending against his tyrannical government spies at NSA, TSA and Homeland Security. Its funny that a man who was trained by Alinsky, Davis, and numerous other Communists, is now spying on Conservative, American loving, Constitution following People. He’s even spying on liberals but you’re too stupid to understand.

    • Dr Moon

      Obama doesn’t even believe in America. He’s trying to turn us into another Muslim Nation, but you liberals are so stupid, you allow him to do whatever he wants. Obama has taken the Bill of Rights and burned them, we no longer have the right to where we live, what we drive, where we can go, who we can speak with, what we can eat, what doctor to see, and hes trying to take away our only means of defending against his tyrannical government spies at NSA, TSA and Homeland Security. Its funny that a man who was trained by Alinsky, Davis, and numerous other Communists, is now spying on Conservative, American loving, Constitution following People. He’s even spying on liberals but you’re too stupid to understand.

    • Jimmy the Greek

      What the hell is wrong with Cruz ? I think he has a fine platform to run on . and nick let me make this as easy as i can for you , most Americans are dummer than a dog !

  • Guest

    So let Cruz run for president, and to hell with the Constitution and rule of law. That has since been burned and tossed in the trash, anyhow. And if it is good for illegal usurper Obama to be President, it is good enough for Cruz. No one cares about the Constitution any longer, and since Obama has set a standard, anyone can run for U.S. president these days.

    • texan

      And that sir, is the bottom line.

      • ChiefBoring

        I refer you to President Chester A. Arthur. He was born in Canada, his mother being a US citizen. His father was not naturalized until years later. That sets a good precedent that you birthers haven’t a leg to stand on. This question was raised and settled at the time. The case you all keep referring to was a voting rights case. There was no holding on the definition of natural born citizen. The court specifically said that was not necessary. Courts do not rule on issues not before them, nor being contended.

  • BDnSC

    Nice Bob. It is good to know you gather your “extensive research” from CNN.

    Here are a few FACTS for you and everyone here:

    Congressional Research Service says:
    “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.'”

    There is no requirement of two “citizen-parents,” CRS found.
    There are quite a few of us that are taking a loser look at the Libertarian Party thanks to Rand Paul. Publishing halfa**ed research as fact does not help the cause in the slightest, and in fact almost had me unsubscribe.
    If you are a true Libertarian, you would be better served telling us why you do not like Cruz than by laying this BS game of “He’s not eligible”.
    Cruz IS eligible, and we intend to primary him hard unless you have a real reason not to.

    • JeffH

      The Congressional Research Service is part of the big government establishment and their opinion doesn’t make anything “law”.

      Bob is 100% correct!

      MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
      The definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.

      The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

      The independent ground the Court used to determine that Virginia Minor was a US citizen is stated as follows:

      “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘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,’ …

      Interestingly enough, even though this case did not require the justices to determine whether or not someone was a natural born citizen, the court made reference to natural born citizens. The Chief Justice’s opinion entertained the following on the issue of natural born citizens:

      “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 of 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “
      http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

      • BDnSC

        Still not sure where you derive his “ineligibility”. His
        Mother was a US Citizen in good standing.

        “The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion
        appears to support the notion that ‘natural born Citizen’ means one who is
        entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S.
        citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United
        States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born
        abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements. Cruz
        meets those requirements.

        A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires
        U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and
        Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the
        United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth.
        The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue
        of the married couple.”

        Since this
        mentions both parents, let’s put your mind at ease with section (g):

        “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
        genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.”

        Under this definition, it would seem clear that Senator
        Cruz would meet the qualifications to run for President as his mother lived in
        the United States for at least ten years after she was fourteen years of age
        prior to going to Canada (note that the rule does not require that the ten
        years be consecutive.)

        • JeffH

          What is sad is that people like yourself refuse to look at the whole intent of Constitution where the
          natural born citizen” requirement appears. Nobody seems to want go into the Framer’s intent of the clause as it was argued and then clarified during the writing of the Constitution.

          I’ll start by clarifying a point that some seem to make in their arguement that the “Common Law” of England was used by the Framers to construct the Constitution. This includes lawyers and the judiciary of states and the federal government.

          “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason

          Central to the Framer’s construction of the Constitution was their reference and use of The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law.

          The Law of Nations
          § 212. Citizens and natives.
          “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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. . . .”

          Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.

          Citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.

          When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

          Birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.
          http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

          • BDnSC

            Sad? The original intent was based on zero recognition that women had rights. I, for one, am not
            willing to go down the road to suggest that a US Citizen that happens to be a woman does not have the right to pass her citizenship to the very child she
            carried and gave birth to.

            You attempt to apply the original intent of the 14th
            Amendment but do not recognize the fact that women now carry the same full, equal status of US Citizenship as men do. That was not the case in the 1860s
            and most people would shout you down for suggesting we digress to such a standard.

            Your whimsical standards you seem to suggest that women don’t share equal rights with men and since you feel that the original intent has been compromised I suppose you would go so far as to say blacks and women should not vote?

            It is one thing to recognize that the when the 14th
            Amendment was written chauvinism was the order of the day. It is quite another to suggest that recognizing Blacks and Women as having equal rights somehow denigrates the Constitution. While you are relying
            on discussions of a much earlier time to establish true intent, today you choose not to take the actual words at their face value.

            “Citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?).”

            It is obvious that you are stuck on the word father but choose to totally disregard the rhetorical question in parentheses.

            Based on your argument, are you actually
            suggesting that when it states all men are created equal, that women are excluded? What is truly sad is that your attempt to take something so literally has blinded you so that you totally miss the intent.

            I am of the belief that the Constitution is timeless and
            means what it says.

          • JeffH

            C’mon, I never once mentioned the 14th Amendment or women’s rights. You’re either reading something into my point regarding who can or cannot be a “natural born citizen” that I did not say or you aren’t paying attention.
            I made and supported my point. Don’t deflect from the subject because you realize I’m correct.

          • BDnSC

            “Citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?).” The above is a
            quote pulled directly from your own words and plagiarized from your own link to the Federalist Blog as explanation for the 14th Amendment.

            Furthermore, your own original argument was, “When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be
            born.” (Again pulled from the Fed Blog as justification for the 14th Amendment)

            Yet you discount the possibility of that child inheriting the mother’s citizenship in order to support your argument. “Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.” (More information pulled directly from your response and from the Fed Blog)

            As I mentioned earlier, you quote these mid
            1800 justifications as support for you argument but fail to address the fact that women have since obtained full right as US Citizens. You fail to offer any updated justification for your position, and in fact ignore the additional explanations I offered from section 301 of the Immigration and Nationalization Act. You cannot have it both ways.

            As for me “not paying attention” …Apparently I have been paying more attention to your attempt to justify your position than you have. I have annihilated you with your own words and justifications but you think I am trying to deflect?

            If you truly believe you have “proven you are right” you
            have a very weak sense of logic. You need to spend more time understanding the blogs you use as references and less time pulling out pieces you think justify your position.

          • JeffH

            You’re actually stupid aren’t you!

            “plagiarized from your own link to the Federalist Blog”

            plagiarism” noun: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work…

            I guess you conveniently missed the link http://www.federalistblog.us/2… I posted crediting the Federalist Blog for the information I referenced and posted.

            In short, you’ve annihilated no one and proved even less!

          • BDnSC

            I stated that I went to the blog via your link you moron! You obviously a major problem with reading comprehension in addition to your inability to discern logic.
            As for being stupid…read your last post you idiot. You state that I acknowledge your own link and one paragraph later you say “I… conveniently missed your link”!?
            Once again you are blown apart with your own ignorance, using your own words against you.

          • JeffH

            You’re the idiot, fool!
            You accused me of plagiarizing after I posted a link as a reference to the information I posted. That was the gist of my response which you obviously didn’t comprehend!

            In your haste to answer back you can’t even remember what you’re arguing about you dolt! You blew apart your argument with your own ignorance!

            Don’t lose your FOCUS fool!

          • BDnSC

            Boy you sure get stuck on words…Father, Plagiarized, and still you can’t follow the intent of the conversation.

            Do yourself a favor and take a few courses in Logic and
            Debate.

            In case you have forgotten oh great brain fart, you have yet to offer a rational argument for any of the points I made regarding your inconsistencies. Instead you choose the words to get hung up on to “deflect” your inability to
            offer a rational argument.

            Based on your first post I thought you might provide an
            intelligent argument. Instead you are a pathetic disappointment. I suppose I should feel sorry for you but I don’t. Just pity.

          • JeffH

            What inconsistencies?

            I see I’ve wasted my time trying to argue with someone who is dumber than a sack of hammers.

          • BDnSC

            What inconsistencies? Go back to the start and reread ALL of you idiotic remarks. If you still don’t see them, google “Dunning-Kruger Syndrome” and it will guide you towards help.

    • Hydro

      You Blame Bob for getting his info from CNN – our Forefathers and the Supreme Court have said a Natural Born Citizen comes from two American Citizen Parents at the time of his or her Birth. Period – People like yourself and all the Rino’s claiming to be Republicans such as Boenner, McCain, Graham and so on are the reason our country is in the condition it is in – The pretender in chief doesn’t know beans about creating jobs , but he sure knows how to spend the tax payers money – he is guilty as sin along with Clinton in the Bengazi Issue , he had a part in the IRS Scandal – he turns his nose up at the Congress and does what he want whether it is Constitutional or not – and people such as yourself defend his position – one day when it turns into a Civil War all of you who defend this Fraud will pay a high price for ignorance.

      • smilee

        Not True, your a joke!! It does not say two parents just parents and in legal terms that means only one has to be a citizen. The courts have never said what you attribute to them.

        • ChiefBoring

          Now you’ve got it, Smilee!

          • JeffH

            In legal terms or otherwise, the definition is the same.

            The singular is parent – One parent
            The plural of parent is parents – Two parents

          • ChiefBoring

            Give it up, Jeff. BHO, McCain, Cruz, Rubio, and Chester A. Arthur are/were all natural born US Citizens. With Arthur, and BHO, the fat lady has sung. This fight is over. Goodbye.

          • JeffH

            You’re just plain stupid aren’t you!
            So was Your mama a natural born citizen?…is she still singing?

          • ChiefBoring

            No, Jeff, my mother is with the angels. Have I attacked your family? No. I don’t recall even attacking you personally. Obviously, however, you have just shown yourself incapable of carrying on a discussion. I intend to ignore any further comments you make, unless honor requires a riposte. Have a nice life.

          • Bob666

            Yo Chief,
            Actually-he treated you very well in comparison to how he treats most people. He once called my wife a moron and he has never met her.

            He is a very hostile & lonely old man.

          • ChiefBoring

            Thanks, Bob. If he’s old, at least Jeff and I have one thing in common: I’m 75. I don’t have the time to be bothered any further by Jeff. ( Not because I’m old, but because I’ve got better things to do.) Thanks again, Bob.

          • Bob666

            No problem Chief,
            Just saw the exchange today, Jeffery does not deal with being wrong very well and tends to lash out when challenged. He will call you a progressive, then a moron and go after some other personal attribute that he can find out about you.

            I have tangled with him a few times and he is pretty predictable and uses the same insults on everyone. I think that he has them in a place where he can copy and paste them with little effort.
            He seems to love his guns a bit too much and gets wound up on the 2nd amendment a little to tight-I’m glad that he lives on the west coast and that we have no bell towers in Florida.

            at 71, I just kind of toy with him when he comes after me.

          • ChiefBoring

            Hi, Bob:Though I too support the Second Amendment, I’m not a fanatic about it, and don’t go around threatening the world if I don’t get my way. I’ve carried one(legally) for nearly 60 years, in and out of the Navy, and, thank God, have never had to use it, except indirectly, by revealing it’s presence. Austin was a long time ago, and that dude had a brain tumor, but we’ve just sadly had evidience of the ongoing presence of nut cases, as in Oklahoma. Things like that give us a bad name. Stay safe.

          • http://socialsity.com/ LastGasp

            I think you could have ,at least, not declared the conversation over. I don’t think you’re correct about the difference between plural and singular. I think the difference is significant and would be obvious in our founding fathers’ day, but there’s just enough slack nowadays for it to be doubted. I’m only 60, but still revere our flag and respect someone I’m talking to.

          • ChiefBoring

            I understand and respect your position, Last, but there’s just no point in our going around in circles about it.

          • JeffH

            Tell the whole story bahhhb666…you brought your wife into the conversation by pointing out that “even my wife”(your wife)agreed with you and laughed at me after showing her some of the comments made in our exchanges here.

            You’re whining again bahhhb666! That’s completely on your shoulders bahhhhb666, not mine! You bring any of your family members into the conversation in a condescending manner and you own all of the repercussions.

            Lonely and hostile? Hardly! LMAO!

            At least I don’t stalk and troll after other posters like you’ve been proven to do bahhhhb666!

          • Bob666

            Well , Well Jeffrey,

            A better man would not have gone there and you have consistently proven that you ARE NOT the better man.

            The Whole story, like the first time that I ever had a post from you-you called me a progressive moron? That is your style Jeffery. You can’t just say, “Hey, I disagree with you and here is why”.

            “You’re just plain stupid aren’t you”! If I had a dollar for every time that you have made a statement like that, I would be a wealthy man.

            Lonely and hostile-you’re 110%. As far as trolling-that’s funny, since 90% of the time- I Respond to people like you when you post to me first. Troll is just another derogatory term that you use to express anger, you would find another term if you could.

            No Jeffery, you have anger issues-that has been proven and for the record, my wife was one of many who laughed at you. I guess there are a lot of morons in the world, probably the same amount of people who disagree with you-about anything.

          • JeffH

            A better man would never have used his wife in the first place like you did bahhhb666. You certainly didn’t think it through before you threw her under the bus…something a thinking man would never have done either. This is the consequence of you putting her in that position, not me.

            You’re nothing more than a joke bahhhhb666. You can dish it out but you can’t take it.

            Your memory is selective at best and you have been shown to be the consumatte hypocrit. Your attempts to portray yourself as something you’re not became very easy to see through very early on with your participation here at PLD.

            To think otherwise is delusional on your part.

            You have consistantly inserted yourself into conversations with the sole purpose to ridicule. You stalk and troll after the posters that you follow on a daily basis with the intent to hound them with dispareging comments.

            You rarely contribute anything of substance other than name calling and ridicule bahhhhb666. All anyone needs to do is go back through the PLD thread archives to verify that as fact!

            You made your bed, you own it, you sleep in it.

            You can continue to twist anything anyway you want to but you always end up getting caught…whining and playing the victim bahhhb666.

            YOU need to grow up bahhhb666…you have gotten exactly what you deserve…you are a lying progressive and always have been.

          • Bob666

            Yo Jeffery,

            “YOU need to grow up bahhhb666…you have gotten exactly what you deserve…you are a lying progressive and always have been”.

            Thank you for proving every statement that I have made about you to be both accurate and correct.

            Good luck with that anger manager issue.

          • JeffH

            Well ChiefBoring, you are right and I do apologize for that underhanded remark.

          • ChiefBoring

            Apology accepted, Jeff. Thank you.

          • Robbie

            Cruz was born in Canada.

          • ChiefBoring

            So was Chester A. Arthur, whose father did not become a US citizen until many years later. And McCain was born in Panama. Your point? And for the two parent crowd, besides President Arthur, only Obama’s mother was a US citizen, no matter where he was born. He is a natural born US citizen because his mother was a US citizen.

          • Robbie

            Traditional wisdom states that one must be born IN the U.S.A. as Obama was. Having an American parent is gravy. McCain was born on U.S. territory in the Canal Zone as it was know at that time. Cruz was born OUTSIDE the country and NOT on U.S. territory.

          • ChiefBoring

            So you choose to ignore the example of PRESIDENT Chester A. Arthur, born in Canada with only his mother as a US Citizen. His father did not become a citizen until many years later. His status was addressed at the time, and he was eligible to be President, as is Cruz. You can’t pick and choose, nor go on “traditional wisdom”.

          • Robbie

            And what, pray tell, was your view of President Obama’s eligibility to hold that office?

          • ChiefBoring

            Robbie, I have already answered that in a previous reply to you . I quote myself: “And for the two parent crowd, besides President Arthur, only Obama’s mother was a US citizen, no matter where he was born. He is a natural born US citizen because his mother was a US citizen.” BHO was eligible to run, though certainly not competent for the job. He has shown that many times over.

          • Robbie

            Traditional wisdom states that one must be born IN the U.S.A. as Obama was. Having an American parent is gravy. McCain was born on U.S. territory in the Canal Zone as it was know at that time. Cruz was born OUTSIDE the country and NOT on U.S. territory.

          • smilee

            Courts ruled in Indiana that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and had only one parent (his mother) that was a citizen that shoots your lie down. President Arthur had the same circumstance and the court opinion references that

      • BDnSC

        Gee Hydro…Are you a lib that has trouble maintaining a train of thought? I cannot think of one time that I have tried to justify anything this regime has done. In fact, Cruz has been the ballsiest guy going after Obama and his minions. And Bob here is trying to crap on the parade, but some how you twist that into me wanting to justify usurping the Constitution? BS! Read my response to JeffH and get back to me.
        And oh, BTW, I am well prepared if there is a coming revolution you better hope you are on the right side.

    • jimbodc1

      BdnSC you are so wrong, read the constitution, it clearly gives the eligibility for the president. Both parents must be citizens of The US, either natural born or naturalized…

      • BDnSC

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

        “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

        Hmm. No mention whatsoever of 2 parents…

      • BDnSC

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

        “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

        Hmm. No mention whatsoever of 2 parents…

  • JeffH

    Bob, thanks for the facts! As you well know, the pathetic liberals and progressives, CINO’s will argue this point despite the Supreme Court clearly defining in Minor v. Happersett who could and could not be a “natural born citizen”.

    Like you said, “The rule of law doesn’t matter to the establishment.”… and apparently the rule of law doesn’t matter to 10’s of millions of American voters.

    I sent letters prior to the 2012 elections questioning a clarification on Obama’s citizenship status, citing the SC’s correct definition in Minor V. Happersett, to the White House and my representatives, Feinstein, Boxer and my(at that time)Congressman Devin Nunes and not one response addressed my question.

    I sent the same a letter to Boehner and to Rubio asking him to openly declare himself inelligable for the presidency based on the SC’s correct citizenship definition in Minor V. Happersett just to show that they supported the Constitution and the supreme rule of law…not a peep from either one.

    I’ll not say more as most everyone knows where I stand on this issue.

    • ChiefBoring

      Minor v. Happerstat was a VOTING RIGHTS CASE! there was no holding on the definition of a natural born cirizen, which the SCOTUS specifically said need not be decided. Give it up.

      • JeffH

        You’re right that it was a voting right case but in order to make a ruling the SCOTUS first had to determine the citizenship of Minor.

        Before moving on to the issue of whether citizens have the right to vote, the Supreme Court in Minor stated their holding as to the citizenship of Mrs. Minor (and therefore as to all women and men).

        The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents(plural-that means both parents) who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by “specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment” and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

        You are obviously another idiot who never read the SCOTUS opinion in the case and if you did you certainly mis-understood it.

        • ChiefBoring

          “I’ll not say more as most everyone knows where I stand on this issue.”
          Jeff, you promised you’d not say more. Please don’t.

  • jag

    WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN BADGES MAN! We NEED AN INDEPENDANT THINKER IN OFFICE NO REPS OR DOMS

  • http://www.obamasucks.tv/ John – Atlanta

    What is laughable about the birth certificate having Kenya as a country is the British called it Kenia. If you have an old world map and have read the diaries of missionaries you will know it was named many things, the most common Kenia. After the mountain. NEVER KENYA.

    When they were getting their independence, Britain was calling it Kenia, the new leaders insisted it be named “Kenya” after their oral tradition. What oral tradition? The one in Hebrew. The northern invaders from Egypt were KENITES that took over the land from the Cushites (from Noah’s son Ham originally), about 70-90 AD when the Romans took the holy land and surrounding area.

    The kenites sold the cushites into slavery to the Arabs (you know Egyptians speak Arabic), who then sold the slaves to the USA (this is part of the Curse of the Zeores) to their Israel brothers (the people that founded the USA).

    What does Kenya mean in spoken Hebrew? Cain (ken) our God (Yah). Cain, Satan’s first child with Eve. The same bloodline/people that killed Jesus. That is who the USA elected.

    The 1st president born after the second fig tree (1948 Israel) is a LIAR (like his father as Jesus said), homosexual, murdering Kenite out to destroy the USA which was founded to promote Jesus to the world.

    That is who the demonCrats and USA elected to lead them before Satan returns to sit on the temple mount (1948+70=2018).

    • Jimmy the Greek

      You sure about all that ?

      • http://www.obamasucks.tv/ John – Atlanta

        1 Chronicles 2
        john 8:33
        matthew 13:37
        revelation 3:9

        Kikuyu

        1st president of Kenya went to theology school and changed his original name from “Kamau wa Ngengi” to “Mzee Jomo Kenyatta” because it did not sound African (Cushite) enough to get elected. Why? “Kamau” is another word for Egyptian.

        His real name basically meant “Egyptian of ngengi” as far as I can tell, which is a city on the west side of Kenya.

        The African name books have Kamau meaning “silent warrior”, is not this how Satan operates, silently? I am sure a British trained theology student knew what it originally meant, that had access to a Strongs, and that is why he changed his name.

        • Jimmy the Greek

          So this all goes back to them dam jews stiring up trouble ,

  • me

    I think they should do away with the birth deal. Why not if they are american citizens and are fully qualified. President Owebunhole is having an american mother but is proving how unqualifed he is. cruz backs the constitution and is called a wacko bird. who cares he was born in canada. His mother was a citizen. . Hillary was right about Owebunholes qualifications in “08”. Cruz made senator. I think cruz has the makings to be a very good president. I don’t think the rules should be different for senators and senators. It all gets back to qualifications for the job.

    • ChiefBoring

      No need to change the rule, which includes the requirement that the US citizen has resided within the country for the 14 years immediate to the election. BHO is incompetent, even though he is a natural born citizen.

  • Louis Lemieux
    • Mike

      Snopes can hardly be considered a credible or objective source of information. The fact that they cited an article from “The Phoenix New Times” as a source in itself shows how diligently they do research. To a liberal, when he reacts to something by saying, “Nuh-uhh,” that means he “debunked” it.

      • Louis Lemieux

        Are you being dishonest?

        The link I gave http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp doesn’t mention “The Phoenix New Times” as one of it’s sources. It gives its sources and that one is not there.
        Snopes aims to debunk or confirm widely spread urban legends. The site has been referenced by news media and other sites, including CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and Australia’s ABC on its Media Watch program. Snopes’ popular standing is such that some chain e-mail hoaxes claim to have been “checked out on ‘Snopes.com'” in an attempt to discourage readers from seeking verification. As of March 2009, the site had approximately 6.2 million visitors per month.

        • ChiefBoring

          Snopes is run by a leftist couple. I would suggest before accepting their findings one do research to verify anything they say.

          • Louis Lemieux

            David Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes’ responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. “You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people,” David Mikkelson told them.

          • ChiefBoring

            What are FactCheck’s bona fides? And what of Walter Annenberg’s ties to former terrorist Bill AYers? I’m not trying to start an argument, I am honestly curious.

          • Louis Lemieux

            Billionaire Republican philanthropist Walter Annenberg gave millions of dollars to a program that was working with William Ayers? Why did George W., Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and all those other Republicans accept money from the people who were funding this William Ayers-associated group? Why didn’t McCain discuss these connections between the Republican Party and Ayers? After his stupid, youthful days with the Weather Underground organization, William Ayers became a normal, productive member of society. After receiving his PhD in the 1980’s, he became a professor of education at the University of Illinois, wrote 15 books, and served as an advisor to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.

          • ChiefBoring

            Agreed, but it would be nice if he apologized for past mistakes. Thanks for the info.

        • ChiefBoring

          Snopes is run by a leftist couple. I would suggest before accepting their findings one do research to verify anything they say.

  • Debbie Hogan Tate

    I believe NOTHING Obama says! And I look for the “hidden” message he is sending! Every time he says we have nothing to worry about, I worry!! Every time he opens his mouth he is lying !! Every time he does something to get our attention elsewhere, he is doing something underhanded that he DOESN”T want our eyes on!

    • Jeff

      And yet you provide your full name. I guess you’re not really worried about reprisals. He says he wants to insure 30 million uninsured Americans. What does he really mean by that?

      • RoseAnne Shaw

        illegal aliens

      • Quester55

        Give you a hint, They Wear Turbans, Use prayer Rugs & Love To murder Americans! Or The Other ones Live in country-states, where they still have dirt floors, Goat Sucking Bats, Love Re-fried Beans & Pass more Methane Gas per Cubic Yard than All the Cattle in TEXAS!

      • Quester55

        Give you a hint, They Wear Turbans, Use prayer Rugs & Love To murder Americans! Or The Other ones Live in country-states, where they still have dirt floors, Goat Sucking Bats, Love Re-fried Beans & Pass more Methane Gas per Cubic Yard than All the Cattle in TEXAS!

    • Irish1025

      Political lesson of the day……(1) How to tell when a politician is lying simple their lips are moving! this concludes our lesson for today!!!!!

  • Quester55

    You can’t have it both ways & Besides, Many of our Governors Come from Questionable citizenship’s, Yet they are in office today! Whats worse is the facts that our Government knew that Obama was a Communist & Educated by the Muslims, Thus being one himself, Yet they allowed this S.O.B. to become president, So why not T.CRUZ. ?

    • Robbie

      Because Cruz is not a natural born American. He was born in Canada.

      • guest

        Canada is on North American soil just as the US is.

        • Robbie

          Cruz was NOT born in the U.S. He was born in another country. Canada is a different country than the U.S. and it doesn’t matter one bit that both are in North America.

          • ChiefBoring

            All true, but still irrelevent.

          • ChiefBoring

            All true, but still irrelevent.

          • Jeff

            But the Constitution does not say that. It says “natural born citizen” without defining it. What if someone has 1 or 2 citizen parents and is born in Canada on a one week vacation? Clearly, this has never been determined by the Supreme Court. I believe if someone is a citizen at birth, he’s a “natural born citizen.” As many times as I’d love to vote against Ted Cruz for President, I don’t believe he’s Constitutionally barred from running.

          • Robbie

            It’s interesting that most folks on this site disqualified Obama by saying he was born outside the country (which wasn’t even true) even though he had an American parent. Now that Cruz comes along and DEFINETELY was born in another country suddenly that’s O.K. because his mother was American.

          • Jeff

            I suspect a Court, though not the current Supreme Court with its entirely political agenda, would have found Obama eligible to run even if he was born overseas since his mother was an American citizen and he had citizenship at birth. The “birth on American soil” requirement works for plot twists in the movies though as the pregnant mother of a future president struggles to get back home before giving birth.

        • Quester55

          Let’s give Robbie a Break(IN SEVERAL PLACES), He Is a True Socialist DEMOCRAT, Suffering From a Brain Disorder, Brought on by Being an Socialist Democrat!

      • caprock

        If his mother was over 21 years of age (Obama’s mother was only 18 and had not met the requirement for US Citizenship, 6 years of living in the US after your 14th Birthday) She could pass on her US citizenship. I wanted to marry a German woman at 19 and was told by the US Embassy in Bonn that I had not attained US citizenship yet even though I was in the US Military and could not pass on my citizenship to a child if we had one. Law of the land at the time 1972. It does not matter where you are born only that you have US citizenship!

        • Robbie

          If you were born on U.S. soil you are a citizen.

          Obama’s mother was born in the U.S. and was, therefore, an American. You don’t gain citizenship at 18 or 21 if you are born on U.S. soil.

      • ChiefBoring

        So was Chester A. Arthur, whose father did not become a US citizen until many years later. And McCain was born in Panama. Your point? And for the two parent crowd, besides President Arthur, only Obama’s mother was a US citizen, no matter where he was born. He is a natural born US citizen because his mother was a US citizen. Robbie, you can keep posting your tripe; someone will keep answering it.

      • ChiefBoring

        So was Chester A. Arthur, whose father did not become a US citizen until many years later. And McCain was born in Panama. Your point? And for the two parent crowd, besides President Arthur, only Obama’s mother was a US citizen, no matter where he was born. He is a natural born US citizen because his mother was a US citizen. Robbie, you can keep posting your tripe; someone will keep answering it.

      • Quester55

        REREAD your recent Laws,Robbie, as Long as The one Running for the Office of the President, That person MUST HAVE BEEN an American Citizen, ” 12 YEARS “, Pryer to his Running for President! By the way Robbie, Can YOU PROVE beyond a shadow of Doubt, What Communistic Country, You were born in????

      • Quester55

        REREAD your recent Laws,Robbie, as Long as The one Running for the Office of the President, That person MUST HAVE BEEN an American Citizen, ” 12 YEARS “, Pryer to his Running for President! By the way Robbie, Can YOU PROVE beyond a shadow of Doubt, What Communistic Country, You were born in????

    • Robbie

      Governors don’t have to be born in the U.S. – Presidents DO.

      • Quester55

        Keep Spewing your Lies long enough & even your master may start to believe it, By the way, how’s the lord of the flies doing these days, or did OBAMA cut you off?

        • Robbie

          Sorry, just quoting information from the Constitution. (Arnie wasn’t allowed to run for President because he was born in Austria).

          • Quester55

            A Brief Study of the Presidents, threw-out history, And Where they where they were born, will prove you wrong!
            Remember, Not All of our current States, where ours at the beginning, some didn’t get added on until the 1900’s, Yet we had PRESIDENTS Elected from them, Or Born in one Country while his American parents where Visiting, in Fact Those Original Rules have Changed or Been Modified by Congress, over the years!
            but I guess those Facts Escape a Obama Follower these days.

          • Robbie

            Look, Obama was not only born in the U.S. & A. but he had an American parent. Time for you to accept this.

          • Quester55

            Look, Robbie, you can Repeat YOUR GODLESS Party’s PROPAGANDA, All you like, & Be Lied too all you wish!

            MY Only Guideline comes From MY GOD’S holy Word, (IN Part) “You shall know them by their Works, wither they be of GOD or the ENEMY!”
            and YOUR Communist President is Pure EVIL! Wrapped up in a TAN, HALF-BREED Skin!
            HE’S only black when it suit’s his current agenda, the rest of the time, he’s whiter than snow with a heart of COAL!
            Beside, United Nation’s records don’t lie in cases of Nationality , & if you Wasn’t so Pig Headed, you could look up the facts for yourself!!
            By the way, in this Country, Birth Records, School Records, college Records, & records of those in Public office, ARE NEVER CLOSED, Unless there is a COURT ORDER to Close those same records!!
            AGAIN, What IS OBAMA HIDING that’s Got him so spooked?

          • Robbie

            So I gather you are still one of the few who thinks the President was not born in the U.S.A. even though Hawaii officials (including a REPUBLICAN governor) attest to the fact that he WAS. Even Donald Trump agrees now. So that leaves you odd man out.

            What I would like to know is what United Nations records on nationality you are talking about. I’ve never heard of any such evaluation process.

            Also, despite the “information” you may have the fact is that school records of anyone need not be released unless the student agrees. In any case Obama has nothing to hide regarding his university transcripts. Fact is in order to be admitted to Harvard he had to have had acceptable grades at the undergraduate level (Columbia University) and in order to be hired by the University of Chicago (where he taught Constitutional Law) he would have to have done pretty well at Harvard.

            So all of what you have said is basically nonsensical.

          • Quester55

            Obama is a master of misdirection, an art he picked up no doubt from his, Libyan, class mates as a growing child!
            As for your so-called contacts and sources of information, that’s just so much more to pity!
            Have you forgotten his Teen years, being raised by his Grand-Parents, both of whom are Registered American Communist, with the F.B.I.? Public Records, As well as “Freedom of Information Act”, look it uf some day, you communist tend to forget such things, while supporting your master Obama! As for that So-Called Republican Turn-coat, Money can Buy nearly anything these days, even Traitors !But you should know all about that, Right?
            By the way, HAWAIIAN SCHOOL RECORDS can only trace Obama(NOT the Name he used back then) threw his Teen years ONLY, No mention of his Grade School years at all, Perhaps because His Mom had him with her while on the job in LIBYA !

          • Robbie

            I didn’t realize that your “GOD’S holy Word” defines the requirements to be President. My teachers always told me that that role was reserved for the Constitution of the U.S. I guess they led me astray!

  • truthseeker

    I am questioning the birth cert now too…. and here is why:

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/Obama-Birth-Certifiate2.htm#.UhJUyJ0o5_s

    I just read the fictional commentary on the birth certificate… all fiction, right?

    Well, I did notice one thing that bothered me…

    There is the long form compared to the birth of a girl the next day, august 5th right below obama’s…

    Look at the numbers. I compared the 151 to 151 under the Dept of
    Health heading on the upper right… then the next 2 numbers… 61 and
    61…

    Then looked at the record number by that which is 5 digits… 10641 for
    Obama… born August 4th, 7:24 pm… then little miss Gretchen…
    10638 August 5th at 2:17 pm

    Wouldn’t you think that Obama’s birth certificate number would be AFTER the number of the girl born the next day?

    The other dates coincide with each other somewhat… but that doesn’t explain why the number is backward… or not in chronological order…

    • Luc

      No!

    • guest

      This is old news you know.

      • Quester55

        Guest, Old News?, It’s Better to Have OLD TRUTHFUL NEWS, Anytime, Rather than the LIAR’S SWILL Obama’s Propaganda Slave Press attempts to Force down our Throats, on a Daily Bases!!

      • Quester55

        Guest, Old News?, It’s Better to Have OLD TRUTHFUL NEWS, Anytime, Rather than the LIAR’S SWILL Obama’s Propaganda Slave Press attempts to Force down our Throats, on a Daily Bases!!

    • Quester55

      It Also Doesn’t Explain His “ Foreign BIRTH PASSPORT “, His Mother had to have for Removing Baby Barrie, From the True Country of His Birth. According to the U.N. Information Center, ONLY NATIVES of That Country, Are allowed PASSPORTS FROM that country! and That Country Sure Wasn’t AMERICA!! give you a Hint, they MURDER KNOWN JEWS & CHRISTIANS THERE, WITH GLEE!!

      • Jeff

        Does your granddaughter know you’re out of bed and typing nonsense on her computer again? Have your nurse give you your bottle and go to bed. You can dream about feeding Obama to the alligators and about that “Swedish” action star you drool over.

        • Quester55

          You Know Jeff, Your Mind & Pampers have a Lot in Common, They’re both able to Hold a Lot of Poop & Should be Changed for the same reason!!

      • Robbie

        This is the first time hearing about a so-called “Foreign BIRTH PASSPORT”. I doubt this is true. If you have actual proof of it please let us know.

    • Quester55

      It Also Doesn’t Explain His “ Foreign BIRTH PASSPORT “, His Mother had to have for Removing Baby Barrie, From the True Country of His Birth. According to the U.N. Information Center, ONLY NATIVES of That Country, Are allowed PASSPORTS FROM that country! and That Country Sure Wasn’t AMERICA!! give you a Hint, they MURDER KNOWN JEWS & CHRISTIANS THERE, WITH GLEE!!

  • Freespirit

    ‘He should be arrested by our military and charged with treason for the things he has done”…along with the perps in the IRS,The FED and the NSA etc.etc. the Cancer in the CORPORATION called the U.S. Government will only spread if ALL parts aren’t removed

  • http://www.facebook.com/herbert.stamper Herbert Stamper

    This piece of feces can never be impeached because he has full support of media, as well as DemoncRATS in senate. Actually, I believe if we had decent people in senate, and congress, he would already be on trial for treason.

    • Ronr

      He also got more votes than the other guy. Like the majority of Americans wanted him as president and not king Romney .

      • Quester55

        That’s the Problem with being a GODLESS SOCIALISTIC Democrat,These days!! Take, RONR, Here, he & His Fellow SLAVES think that Good is Bad!, that LIES are better than the Truth, That Spreading Malicious roomers & False Story’s are the best way to win a presidential Election! And PLEASE NOTE: NOT ONE OF OBAMA’S ALLEGATIONS WHERE EVER PROVEN TO BE TRUE!! Yet My Fellow Blacks, Out of Fear & Pure stupidity voted for this, ” communistic, Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” !!Also note, After the Election was Won, Those Voting Machines DISAPPEARED OVER NIGHT, After A TAMPERING CHARGE WAS MADE! Obama’s Good Friend from the Islands, OWNED THOSE MACHINES!! FACT!!,Also Note: It wasn’t 4 Weeks After Obama Was Sworn That He Started , Going Against the Agreements he Made to My Fellow Voters, Of Better jobs 7 better Pay, Thus Proving Himself to be a Two-Faced LIAR!!

      • Quester55

        That’s the Problem with being a GODLESS SOCIALISTIC Democrat,These days!! Take, RONR, Here, he & His Fellow SLAVES think that Good is Bad!, that LIES are better than the Truth, That Spreading Malicious roomers & False Story’s are the best way to win a presidential Election! And PLEASE NOTE: NOT ONE OF OBAMA’S ALLEGATIONS WHERE EVER PROVEN TO BE TRUE!! Yet My Fellow Blacks, Out of Fear & Pure stupidity voted for this, ” communistic, Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” !!Also note, After the Election was Won, Those Voting Machines DISAPPEARED OVER NIGHT, After A TAMPERING CHARGE WAS MADE! Obama’s Good Friend from the Islands, OWNED THOSE MACHINES!! FACT!!,Also Note: It wasn’t 4 Weeks After Obama Was Sworn That He Started , Going Against the Agreements he Made to My Fellow Voters, Of Better jobs 7 better Pay, Thus Proving Himself to be a Two-Faced LIAR!!

  • Debbie Hogan Tate

    Read “One Hundred Articles of Impeachment” Everyone should copy and paste, then send to all people representing our government! Mayors, Governors,Representatives, Senate, Congress, Superior Court Judges, EVERYONE!! Then turn the pressure up!

    http://www.knowthelies.com/node/8922

    • smilee

      It is all a Joke and of propaganda caliber.

  • Dennis Patrick

    I took some time yesterday to inspect the alleged “birth certificate” of U.S. “Senator” “Ted” Cruz. He plans to run for president in 2016, but has a little issue called being born and indoctrinated in a socialist country known as “Canada.” I’m still piecing together his real back story, but for now I can tell you that I take issue with the following on what he claims is the legal document proving he became him when and where he says he did:

    1. The certificate was released as a crude, cartoonish gif. Actual birth certificates in the 1970s were printed on birch bark.

    2. The red seal is blank. Authentic Canadian birth certificates show a Mountie chasing a moose making off with a six-pack of Molson.

    3. The font. It’s all wrong. Go to http://www.thefontit‘sallwrong.com for magnification and a comparison of typewriter keystrokes from Departments of Health in all four Canadian provinces and, most important, Moscow. Yes, I said Moscow and I’ll say it again. Moscow.

    4. There’s no mention of hockey anywhere on this “certificate.” Also: a proton scan reveals no trace of tar sand residue, and that sh!t gets all over everything. Why so clean…”Ted?”

    5. The conservative bible known as National Review calls the entire population of Canada “Wimps!” If “Ted Cruz” indeed has dual U.S.-Canada citizenship, this would make him a half-wimp and unacceptable to the Republican party. Yet “Ted Cruz” acts like a bully and is accepted with open arms by the GOP. Why the discrepancy? What’s going on here?

    6. I have no recollection of ever seeing “Ted Cruz” during his childhood, in grade school, or college. In fact, I’d never heard of “Ted Cruz” until a couple years ago. Where has he been all these years? What is he hiding and where is he hiding it?

    7. Skip 7—I’m saving it for my book.

    8. This is a very short document—only a dozen or so lines. Where’s the long-form birth certificate? Or should I say: where’s the long-form birth certificate, comrade? (Or sir or mister or other suitable address…I’m flexible.)

    9. Four out of five dentists who confirm the authenticity of birth certificates as a side job tell me this thing is as fake as a two-dollar loonie. At least I think so. I was sucking on laughing gas at the time.

    That’s for starters. I’ll reveal the rest in my brief to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, please send lots and lots of money for my new time share think tank, Americans for Sensible Blather, so I can continue investigating this assault on our democracy in all fifty states. I plan to start by scouring every birth record in Hawaii, the last place “Ted Cruz” would expect anyone to look. I hope their records are online so I can do the scouring from the smartphone in my golf cart.

    • Bob666

      Yo Dennis,
      You may have started the next conspiracy!

      LMAO

    • Robbie

      Totally great posting! Wish I had thought of it myself. Also, I trust Donald Trump is all over this case. His investigators in Hawaii ought to be finished with their detective work by now.

    • Annette Rose Giesbrecht

      :)

    • guest

      Did you research so much with the illegal Imposter now in residence.

      • mary Goode

        I hope he reads these comments. They are sick.

    • Quester55

      D.P. ( Democratic [expletive deleted] What Say did You have in the country where you were BORN? YOU HAD NO CHOICE, Did YOU!!
      Besides, At the Rate Your Beloved, Obama is Finished Destroying OUR United States Constitution, It Will Not Matter where he was born, Whom in their Right Mind would want to be the PRESIDENT of a Smoldering Hole in the Ground, Where Washington D,C. Once Stood?

  • Chris

    Bar. messmer,Maybe after the next election,hopefully,this number will be greatly reduced !!!

  • Robbie

    Cruz is not a “natural born” American. He was born in Canada. Let’s see the birth certificate.

    • Quester55

      What a Bigot you are turning out to be,” Robbie “, You allow Swedish Born ARNOLD S., ( Mr. I’LL BE BACK) the Honor of being Calif.’s Governor, But Ted Cruz, Can’t be President, Because Of COMMUNIST like Yourself Won’t Allow it, ?

      Yes Our Constitution Has the Requirements, Yet Your Communistic Leader, That AMERICAN HATING, FOREIGN born, PAPER FORGING, Anti-Christlike Dictator in Office, is Any Better? You must be one of his Cabana-boys, Kissing his butt so well , To Believe that!

      • Robbie

        First of all Arnie was/is Austrian not Swedish. The Constitution stipulates that Presidents must be natural born Americans. That stipulation does not apply to the position of Governor which is why Arnie qualified for that post but not for President. Obama was born in the U.S. plus had an American parent. He qualified. Please be careful not to let your hatreds get in the way of a calm and proper reading of what the Founders wrote in the Constitution. Thank you.

        • Mike

          One American parent is not enough. It takes two to create a natural-born American citizen. That means Obama doesn’t qualify.

          • Robbie

            False.

          • veteran45

            let the judges & courts deside, look how good they have done so for!!!???

          • Quester55

            Waiting for the,” Supreme Court Jesters “, to Pass a Law that Goes Against Their MASTER OBAMA, Would be a Waste of Time! Quicker just to take Barry on a GATOR Hunt, & use him as the Bait!! Course PETA Would Sue you for Attempting to POISON those Swamp GATORS!!

        • Quester55

          You think you know so much, pray tell, from what state was Obama hatched from? You Socialist got the nerve calling people that follow Jesus as,” Haters”, when we don’t hate Obama at all, He to can Repent & be Saved, Just like You, Yet We Do Reserve the RIGHT to HATE his Policies & False Leadership! Besides Where is your PROOF that the Founding Fathers where all Natural Born Americans, As the only ones I’ve ever heard of, Was the INDIANS! THEY WHERE FIRST & Even Obama Refuses to let them Dig Their own Water-wells, on their Reservations!!

          • Robbie

            Well, I DO know quite a bit but it doesn’t take much to know what I wrote about the qualifications for president versus governor. All you have to do is read the relevant bits of the Constitution.

            To answer your crude and rude question about the state President Obama was born in the answer is Hawaii. I’m kind of surprised you don’t know that. Have you been living in a closet these last 6 or 7 years?

            Re: birth place of the Founding Fathers – a number of them were born in England. Keep in mind (if you even ever knew) that prior to the Revolution America – as it came to be known – was a British colony and all residents were considered British and a goodly number of them would have been born in the “mother country” itself. Without doing any actual research this moment I do know that George Washington was born in Virginia colony.

            But really it doesn’t matter where the Founders were born or not born. They were the ones who wrote up the rules for future Presidents and all and they decided that from then onwards they wanted all Presidents to be “natural born”.

    • ChiefBoring

      So was Chester A. Arthur, whose father did not become a US citizen until many years later. And McCain was born in Panama. Your point? And for the two parent crowd, besides President Arthur, only Obama’s mother was a US citizen, no matter where he was born. He is a natural born US citizen because his mother was a US citizen. Robbie, you can keep posting your tripe; someone will keep answering it.

      • texastwin827

        Chief, while President Arthur may fit the scenario because his father was not a US citizen, at the time of his birth, McCain (who I do not like) was born on a US Naval base, in Panama, to US citizen parents. Any US base, in a foreign country, is considered “US soil” just as our consulates are.

        • ChiefBoring

          Maam, I respect Texans and had family there. Unfortunately they have all passed away. One of my McCollums fought at the first battle of Bexar. The 18th Georgia was part of the Texas Brigade until after Sharpsburg(Antietam). The 18th CO, Col., later Gen. Wofford, commanded the Texans in that fight. And, as an old Navy Chief, I am well aware of McCain’s status. I’m not too fond of him lately, either. I used him as an example to the birthers, who as a group do not have a clear grasp of the Constitution nor Supreme Court decisions. I read your explanation of the age requirements regarding your marriage. I have no clue where some of these folks get their information, since a natural born citizen is a citizen at birth, you know the mother’s age has no bearing on when she gives birth. Maybe they are thinking of voting age. I haven’t heard any of them explain that idea. Y’all have a nice day.

    • ChiefBoring

      So was Chester A. Arthur, whose father did not become a US citizen until many years later. And McCain was born in Panama. Your point? And for the two parent crowd, besides President Arthur, only Obama’s mother was a US citizen, no matter where he was born. He is a natural born US citizen because his mother was a US citizen. Robbie, you can keep posting your tripe; someone will keep answering it.

    • Quester55

      Poor Robbie, He’s Opened his Fat Mouth, Just in time too insert his Foot in it!! ChiefBoring said Just what the Book States, That Is:That’s covered by the requirement that the President be a US resident
      the immediate 14 years before election. Article II, Section one. Look it up Robbie, If You Dare!!Robbie, If your So Overjoyed with OBAMA being an Card Carrying American Communist, (JUST LIKE GRAND_MA & PA) Take your next Vacation & Go to RUSSIA & Ask the People there how well they loved COMMUNISM!Or Just stay at home & Wait for Those 12,000 Russian Troops that Obama wants to Come over here to Man the U.S.Concentration Camps . When he Tries to FORCE TAGS on the Citizens & We Rebel!!

      • Robbie

        Concentration camps? Russian soldiers? You’re joking around right?

        • Quester55

          Funny, that’s the same thing the Jewish/Germans asked, just before they were led off to the showers! Look at what happened to them!

          • Robbie

            Well is there any word on when these concentration camps will be opening? Are they being built right now? Obama does not have that much longer in his term so he’d better get them open pretty soon. Do you have any word on where they are? And when will those Russian soldiers start arriving? I’m hearing on the news that Obama is quite upset with Russia over the Syrian situation. Obama is refusing to have his private meeting with Putin over that whistle blower guy. But I guess that’s just a clever ruse to get us to think that there’s no way any Russian soldiers would be coming over to America. Then all of a sudden, oooops, here they are – a whole boat load of Ruskies! OMG I hope you have a few weapons on hand to fight them off. I hope you live near the port they will be docking at so you can peg them off as they deboat. Oooo, but what if they come by plane? Gee, this could get complicated. Please tell the rest of us what we should do to prepare.

      • Robbie

        Concentration camps? Russian soldiers? You’re joking around right?

  • carl_AF

    I do believe there should be confirmation that anyone born to U. S. citizen parents and serving in a dipolmatic or military post should be allowed to run for president. There was a reason that it was written that persons running for president should be native born is that we do not need for someone born elsewhere to be in the position of the President of the United States. Just look at what we have in the present president that was raised in another county and still has their ideals in his brain.

    • ChiefBoring

      That’s covered by the requirement that the President be a US resident the immediate 14 years before election. Article II, Section one.

    • ChiefBoring

      That’s covered by the requirement that the President be a US resident the immediate 14 years before election. Article II, Section one.

    • megMM

      You hit the nail on the head with this response. I don’t think he really knows where he is from and has so many mixed allegiances “fromThe Merriam/Webster Dictionary– 1. Loyality owed by a citizen to his government or 2. loyalty to a person or a cause.” He does not know who to be loyal too.

  • guest

    As I said earlier on about this situation, What is good for the Goose is also good for the Gander.
    With a British African for father and a mother who was underage (at the time it was 21yrs) to pass on citizenship and who had been out of the country more than five years, the Imposter was and is absolutely not qualified to be President. I blame the Communists in the so-called Demoncrap alliance who allowed this at the same time they hectored McCain about his parentage (Two American citizens stationed in Panama on a US BASE)
    They knew they could control this moron, supposedly an intellectual and SO smart. Too smart to make a speech without his teleprompter. Watch his Buffalo speech mess.
    Cruz was born in NORTH AMERICA because Canada happens to be in the same Continent as the US. SO??????? Methinks most people forget this or now are trying to do so.
    I would take Cruz OVER any other of the weak-kneed so-called conservatives any day.

    • ChiefBoring

      Obama’s mother was a US citizen no matter her age. What does her age have to do with it? I have heard this mentioned before, because there was no other potential reason to deny Obama’s status as a natural born US Citizen, but no one has explained their reasoning.

    • ChiefBoring

      Obama’s mother was a US citizen no matter her age. What does her age have to do with it? I have heard this mentioned before, because there was no other potential reason to deny Obama’s status as a natural born US Citizen, but no one has explained their reasoning.

      • Oldenuff2 know freedom

        Being a lifelong enemy of of individual rights as listed in the Constitution of the United States and breaking every oath of every office he’s held before and during his presidency is enough to kick him out of office and face prosecution for to many crimes of tyranny, treason and terrorism to list here…. but that would mean putting common sense ahead of the almighty political correctness.
        .

      • Oldenuff2 know freedom

        Being a lifelong enemy of of individual rights as listed in the Constitution of the United States and breaking every oath of every office he’s held before and during his presidency is enough to kick him out of office and face prosecution for to many crimes of tyranny, treason and terrorism to list here…. but that would mean putting common sense ahead of the almighty political correctness.
        .

        • ChiefBoring

          His being a citizen doesn’t make him competent or honest. But if he was impeached the Senate would not convict him, but make him a martyr to his base. Three more years, and God save the Supreme Court!

    • ChiefBoring

      Obama’s mother was a US citizen no matter her age. What does her age have to do with it? I have heard this mentioned before, because there was no other potential reason to deny Obama’s status as a natural born US Citizen, but no one has explained their reasoning.

    • texastwin827

      I’m not sure why you feel that Obama’s mother’s age is a factor, however, in the 1960’s EACH state determined who was a minor and who was an adult. In TX, neither men nor women could legally sign a contract, as an adult, until age 21 BUT, a woman could marry, without her parent’s consent, at 18 and a man could not…he had to be 21 which is why, when I married my husband (same age as me), his mother had to go with us to obtain our marriage license as she had to give consent for HIM.

      As for Senator Cruz….I voted for him as my Senator and, so far, he has done exactly what he said he would do, during his campaign (restoring my faith that it is possible to find good candidates) . Because of that, I would vote for him, as President, in a heartbeat. That said, it will not matter, if we do not replace the “old guard” in BOTH parties with new people who genuinely care about this country and preserving our Constitution.

      Folks, it’s time “We the People” did our job, as citizens….our founding fathers gave us one important job to do…protect the beautiful gift they provided us. Time to get off our butts and take charge!

  • Mike

    Cruz did not have to be “naturalized” to become a U.S. citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen. Therefore he is a natural-born citizen. He has also lived in the U.S. since early childhood. He is culturally an American.

  • Tim

    Rand Paul is the GOP establishment? *facepalm* If him and Cruz are ‘the GOP establishment’ even though they’re always working against it (McCain, Graham, Rove, Christie, Rubio, McConnell, Boehner), and CNN is working with them despite loathing them and the fact many liberals are Cruz birthers, then who’s not? Donald Trump? Orly Taitz?
    This site’s a valuable one. Keep credibile.

  • BobTrent

    As the terms “citizen,” “natural,” “born” and “natural born citizen” are used in the text of the constitution, only the courts (read Supreme Court), not Congress, can determine the meanings of such terms. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920) Otherwise Congress by redefining words could take to themselves powers not granted.

  • peter

    Look where electing Obama got us. Do we want to take that risk again?

    • me

      That won’t happen again. Owebunhole was just as hillary said unqualified candidatecandidate. Owebunhole won it by telling everyone what they wanted to hear. In his reelection he supported the sinful gay marriage and immigration amnestyand unions. Cruz is more of a strait shooter who stands up for the constitution and the rights of the people. Something we havent had in forever. This guy is very qualified. who cares if he was born to an American mother in canada. This one would do the job.hopefully he forms a wacko bird ticket with Rand Paul in 2016.

  • Jim B.

    This is madness! He is or he isn’t… he isn’t… period! I just wish we had had an opportunity to validate the current POTUS as well because we still don’t know. Cruz can be a player, a leader, but not POTUS!

    • Jeff

      That’s an opinion and I certainly hope you vote against Cruz should he be the Republican nominee. But I don’t think you’re right on the law. Here’s the operative portion of Minor v Happersett where the whole “citizen” discussion is held:

      “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 of 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their[p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
      The Court lays out the distinction between an obvious citizen, like the lady seeking to vote, with two citizen parents and born here, vs. an alien or foreigner. The Court then brings up a third category, those born here irrespective of the citizenship of the parents. Of those, the Court, speaking historically, notes there have been doubts, but that for purposes of this case it need not resolve those doubts. Does Minor say for sure that such citizens can run for President? No. Does it say they can’t? Again, no. It specifically does not rule on the issue of the citizenship of anyone in the “doubt” category.
      As I have stated before, saying that someone who weighs 400 pounds is obese is not the same as saying someone who weighs 350 is not.