Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

I am a big fan of Rush Limbaugh and have been for well over 20 years.

I do not always get to listen to him but I caught a few minutes yesterday when he was discussing the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

He used citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

Even John McCain has this right. Cruz’s eligibility is subject to scrutiny.

To Limbaugh’s credit, he did go on to read the eligibility provision from the US Constitution and state the difficiencies of the candidates and opposing thoughts on what NBC means.

I found the following offensive. It reminds me too much of John Boehner and the mainstream media:

“I’m not saying that won’t happen, but they’re not gonna succeed in going into court and have Ted Cruz told by a court, “Hey, Mr. Cruz, we’ve just discovered you’re not a citizen. Leave the country! Turn in your passport and go back to Canada.”  It isn’t gonna happen. ”

Citizenship is not the term or the question. Hell, we’ll let anybody be a citizen.

It’s natural born citizen!

From Rush Limbaugh January 7, 2016.

“Cruz Citizenship Kerfuffle Is a Distraction”

“Well, we’re getting closer to the day that actual votes are going to happen, which is why all of this kerfuffle is effervescing up and boiling over. I mean, the nonsense on whether or not Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. It’s stunning.”

“The latest to join this bandwagon suggesting that Ted Cruz may want to actually go to court and get some confirmation on the fact he’s a citizen, it could be a problem out there, John McCain. John McCain is now officially questioning Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for the presidency. It’s getting into bizarro territory here. Remember, now, McCain was born in Panama, and his presidential eligibility is the same and based on the same constitutionality as is Ted Cruz’s. It’s amazing.

Folks, I left the program yesterday, and this was the subject we were laughing about, the way Trump was talking about it and raising the issue but not opining on it. And because the Republican establishment is scared to death of either one of them winning, the gears got into full motion and people started investigating this constitutionally, intellectually. You would not believe, one website probably has 75,000 words written on this. And the 75,000 words include the learned opinions of countless other scholars on whether or not Ted Cruz is actually an American citizen.”

“Anyway, the eligibility question is an interesting political development because it is gonna be explored, it is gonna be a distraction. The Democrats are gonna milk it for all it’s worth because of what happened to Obama and the birthers. And despite the fact that there’s no similarity or commonality in the two claims, they’re still gonna rely on the low-information voters’ ignorance of this and act like, “Hey, this is fun. You know, you guys did it to Obama, we got a chance to do it to you,” so that’s why they’re gonna get in on it.”

“But it’s an opportunity for a lot of people to show their chops, demo their chops on the Constitution. I mean, here’s what this really is all about. It’s right out of the Constitution. It is very, very simple. It’s Article 2, Section 1. “No person except a natural born citizen…” I’m telling you, I went to a blog site, and there’s a 75,000-word article on “natural born citizen,” what it means. I thought, “You know what? I could print that out, I could read that whole piece, and it’d be my program today. I could take the day off; just read that piece. At the end of that you’d think I’m nuts or brilliant.”

But 75,000 words! That’s a wild guess. But it printed out to 20 pages. “No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of it United States, at the time of the adoption of the 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 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.” There’s nothing else. You can have an IQ of 20. You can be dumb, stupid. You can be poor, you can be uneducated. None of that matters. You just have to be a natural born citizen, gotta be 35 years old, and you have to have lived within the United States for 14 years.

That’s it. So when people raise the question, “‘Natural born citizen’? What’s that mean?” ‘Cause it doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Constitution. It’s not defined. The founders do not define what natural born citizen is, which means that back in the day they wrote it… It’s why original intent’s so important, folks, when you analyze the Constitution. “What did they mean? What did ‘natural born citizen’ mean at the time they wrote it?” It’s a derivative from British common law which meant natural born subject. And, I’m telling you, this… Andy McCarthy writes about this today, and he’s right.”

“It is not explained in the writings or the history of those who framed the Constitution, nor is it in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on it and probably never will. “Natural born” is not used anywhere in the Constitution. Its origins are unclear. It is assumed to be derived, as I say, from the British common stature law governing natural born subjects. And therein provides the wide opening for everybody to mad dash into and define it themselves as to their particular benefit.

There are essentially two ends of the spectrum here about which everybody agrees, in terms of the meaning of “natural born citizen.” 1. A person born in the United States to parents, both whom are United States citizens. Obviously, you’re natural born. You’re born here. Your parents are citizens. Bammo, you’re a citizen. Nobody questions it, and you’re natural born. By the way, if you Planned Parenthood aficionados are listening, it has nothing to do with artificial wombs and all that. That’s not what “natural born” means. We can rule that out right now. We’re not talking about test tubes here.

Although we might somewhere down the road. You never know. And the other end of the spectrum is a person born outside the United States to parents, neither of who is a United States citizen, is not a natural born citizen. Nobody disagrees with that. Even if citizenship is obtained through naturalization later, that is not natural born citizen. So if you’re a naturalized citizen — born somewhere else, your parents are not Americans — and if you come here and become a citizen? “Sorry, you’re not qualified. Too bad.”

Now, Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between these two points on the spectrum here. Rubio and Jindal born in the US to parents neither of whom was a citizen at the time that he was born here. So, bammo. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents, one of whom (his mother) was a US citizen, and as far as the best minds have worked on this, that alone qualifies Cruz. Now, Trump months ago… We had the audio sound bite yesterday. Months ago, Trump said of Cruz, “Ah, it’s not about that.”

Trump says, “Cruz is perfectly fine. It’s not a problem here. I looked into it; we have no problem with Cruz.” Now, yesterday Cruz becomes the focus point of Trump. “Weeeeell, I don’t know. I might be a little nervous. He might want to get clarification.” That’s all it took to get the media revved up and create this distraction now that is designed to distract Cruz, raise doubts, weaken support, all of these things. It’s ’cause Cruz is the front-runner now in the Hawkeye Cauci.”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/07/cruz_citizenship_kerfuffle_is_a_distraction

DISTRACTION???

Come on Rush, I know that you have always claimed to be an entertainer, but it’s the Constitution.

 

Advertisements

11 responses to “Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

  1. citizenwells

    “John Boehner fails Constitution 101, Meet the Press interview, Boehner natural born citizen not citizen, Obama eligibility”

    “The US Constitution was read in the House of Representatives last week. As I understand it, Constitution 101 classes will be held for congressmen. Some members of Congress, including John Boehner, may have to do some remedial work including stay after class. The same day that the Constitution was read, John Boehner used the word citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably. He also exhibited ignorance regarding proof of Obama’s birthplace.”

    https://citizenwells.com/2011/02/13/john-boehner-fails-constitution-101-meet-the-press-interview-boehner-natural-born-citizen-not-citizen-obama-eligibility/

  2. citizenwells

    IT’S THE CONSTITUTION STUPID!

  3. citizenwells

    Whatever the employment data is, it will not compensate for the decimation of native born & white employment under Obama.
    More lies.

  4. citizenwells

    “Now that the Fed has commenced its rate hike cycle, the jobs report suddenly takes on far less significance because only a massively “outlier” print will have an impact on Fed thinking, thinking which so far appears undented despite a raging manufacturing recession across the US. This means that the December jobs could be the “most important ever” only in retrospect, with either a huge miss (think 275,000) having a material impact at a time when algos are much more focused on China scrambling to prevent its economy – and market – crashing, hard.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-08/your-last-minute-payrolls-preview-what-wall-street-expects

  5. oldsoldier79

    TO BE OR NOT TO BE- A LAW PROFESSOR, THAT IS THE QUESTION !

    The law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach.

    The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position.

    He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

    The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.

    According to one professor, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building.

    He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
    ———————————————————————————————-
    Quit lying you scumbag! THE REASON THE LAW SCHOOL GOT THE CALL; THE ROYAL SAUDI FAMILY DONATED $50,000,000 TO HARVARD, TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
    ———————————————————————————————–
    Any questions on his qualifications as a law professor?

  6. RUSH IS WRONG!

    *********

    “That’s it. So when people raise the question, “‘Natural born citizen’? What’s that mean?” ‘Cause it doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Constitution. It’s not defined. The founders do not define what natural born citizen is, which means that back in the day they wrote it… It’s why original intent’s so important, folks, when you analyze the Constitution. “What did they mean? What did ‘natural born citizen’ mean at the time they wrote it?” It’s a derivative from British common law which meant natural born subject. And, I’m telling you, this… Andy McCarthy writes about this today, and he’s right.”

    “It is not explained in the writings or the history of those who framed the Constitution, nor is it in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on it and probably never will. “Natural born” is not used anywhere in the Constitution. Its origins are unclear. It is assumed to be derived, as I say, from the British common stature law governing natural born subjects. And therein provides the wide opening for everybody to mad dash into and define it themselves as to their particular benefit.”

    ***********
    This is when The Supreme Court ruled on the definition of natural born Citizen.

    “MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.

    …the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was 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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

    There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.

    On one side are those who have no citizenship other than that of the United States… as distinguished from those on the polar opposite side who have absolutely no claim to citizenship in the United States; “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Those who fall in between these two extremes make up a third class of persons whose citizenship status, the Court noted, was subject to doubt:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

    Had this third class been contemplated as having any claim to being natural-born citizens, the distinction employed by the court would not make sense. The distinction was employed to more specifically identify the class of persons who were natural-born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The two classes discussed are in direct polar opposition to each other. Had this distinction not been employed, it might be argued that those born in the country of one citizen parent were also natural-born. But the distinction leads to the necessary conclusion that the Court in Minor was identifying a two-citizen parent rule.

    For example, a person born in the US to a British father and U.S. citizen mother would, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (and at the time Minor v. Happersett was decided), be considered as a natural-born subject of the U.K. Whether this child would be, at his birth, a citizen under the 14th amendment, was left undecided by the Court in Minor. But let’s assume that the child was a U.S. citizen. Where does that child fit into the distinction offered by the Court in Minor? The child is not on either polar extreme, since the child was not exclusively a US citizen at birth, nor was the child exclusively a British subject at birth. He does not fit into the distinction.

    By choosing two extremes – those who, at their birth, are nothing but U.S. citizens – “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” – those who, at their birth, are in no way U.S. citizens – the Supreme Court in Minor provided the necessary criteria to properly discern their holding.

    Nothing has been left open as to the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen. This is further made clear by the Court’s other – somewhat overlooked – federal citizenship holding:

    “The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…

    For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874).”

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

  7. NATURALIZATION IS THE KEY We have to keep our eyes fixed on the Constitution ROGERS v. BELLEI, April 5, 1971 Appellee challenges the constitutionality of § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen…..Page 401 U. S. 817 The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship AT BIRTH…Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process……Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship Page 401 U. S. 840 under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history…A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized.>>> TED CRUZ IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN AT BIRTH.

  8. QUESTIONS: What Could Satan try to do to stop Ted Cruz, a Godly Revival and Constitutional order from being promoted in the political world? LIES!
    ======================
    TRUMP SAYS:
    1.First that
    (a) all the lawyers and experts have check out Cruz and he is ok as far as eligibility.
    (b) That he believe Cruz, BUT, intimates that he might not be eligible to run for president. This is obviously because he fears Cruz might win.
    ——————-
    THE FOUNDERS SAID:
    “[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”…
    ——————
    Watch for more LIES like the below:
    **FIRST LIE:..The founders used the plural CITIZENS showing that both parents had to be a citizen… WRONG.. the plural is used when talking about more than one person, yes, but in this case of ALL the citizenry. Plus it SPECIFICALLY shows that any woman of all american women “citizens” Could have a baby out of country and the Father do not have to be a citizen at all, but would have had to be a RESIDENT at some point.
    —————–
    ***SECOND LIE:….That they changed the law and that Changed what the Founders showed the Constitution meant in 1790. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE… You cannot change the Constitution by an act, statue or law. Once the Founders showed that “Natural Born” which they put in the Constitution was consistent with a SINGLE PARENT (mother) being a citizen, without the father being one, the CASE IS CLOSED… you may disagree but you will be wrong. The Constitution is not wrong; nor were the founders.
    —————–
    LAST LIE:… The fact that they began to use the words “Citizen at Birth” instead of “Natural born”.. That supposedly Changes the original meaning in the Constitution… That is totally IGNORANT and IMPOSSIBLE..since it takes a Constitutional amendment to change what the FOUNDERS showed they meant in the Constitution. Only the details can be changed in new laws and not the basic concept laid down by the founders. And you will find that they have always kept the same concept in all Citizenship and naturalization statues. YOU CANNOT GET AROUND clear truth.
    —————-
    The LIES are very Tricky, Just like Satan, but totally illogical. But then people often Just believe without logic, so he could Deceive and get a man chosen for President that has told people to their faces, “I BUY POLITICIANS” and “I have never done anything that I thought I needed to ask God forgiveness for.” … His own words.
    —————-
    SO WHO DO YOU BELIEVE, Trump and the LIES; or the Founders? And will we elect a man obviously prepared all his life for a time such as this or choose the one that confesses to be a buyer of corruption and have never repented? Like God allowed with ancient Israel, he does not change; the Choice is yours!

  9. Your misinformation is just as bad as the lies you attribute to Trump. So instead of opinion lets let the Supreme Court decide and NO it won’t be the 4 case with NBC in them. ROGERS v. BELLEI, April 5, 1971 Appellee challenges the constitutionality of § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen…..Page 401 U. S. 817 The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship AT BIRTH…Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process……Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship Page 401 U. S. 840 under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. ….A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized>>>>TED CRUZ IS A NATUALIZED CITIZEN AT BIRTH.

  10. Yes, TED CRUZ IS A NATUALIZED CITIZEN AT BIRTH. He is absolutely Constitutionally Ineligible to be President or VP according to what follows from the 14th Amendment. Please read details of proof of his Ineligibility in the UPDATE 4 – Jan 2016 “Regarding matters related to the 14h Amendment’ to the publication “To Defenders of the Constitution!”:

    http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/to-defenders-of-the-constitution
    (Just in case, if this link somehow doesn’t work, Google the title “To Defenders of the Constitution!” /in quotes/ and take the first link).

    Please be a Defender of the Constitution and spread a word!

  11. Sorry for an erratum. It should be:

    TED CRUZ IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN AT BIRTH.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s