Not Again: A new ‘birther’ movement is going after…Ted Cruz?

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

If your were as glad most people are to see less “birther” stories in the news recently, you’re not going to like this story. Yes, apparently there’s a brand new set of birthers roaming the interwebs and they’re not victims of the Clinton-started Obama birther movement.

This group is targeting Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

In response to the claims, Cruz quickly released his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News.

Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Alberta to his American citizen mother, giving him American citizenship, is also apparently a Canadian citizen due to the country’s automatic citizenship law.

“Interesting he didn’t seem to know that,” Stu noted this morning during radio .  I mean, obviously he didn’t even know that it was true”

“I am telling you now, Ted, get yourself a Canadian passport and I would like to be your friend, because if things ever melt down, take me with you to Canada,” Glenn joked.

“I’m on record as a blue Jays fan,” Stu quickly added.  Just throwing that out there. I have been talking about that for a long time.”

Many conservative voters hoping for a 2016 Ted Cruz presidential run can rest easy for now.

In the meantime, we can only hope that the word “birther” will go back into retirement…

  • snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    Here is an easy way to solve the problem once and for all: have a judge deliver a ruling on the matter, he either can run or cannot, just end the matter once and for all.

    • Timothy Weaver

      Agreed.  I’m afraid Dems will wait until he’s nominated for president and it’s too late to put another Repub on the ballot to take legal action so that they’ll win by default.

      • greywolfrs

        Or you could all simply vote for the Libertarian, then the Democrap does NOT win by default.

    • Anonymous

      Instead of relying on what you agree is a corrupted system not representing the people OR the Constitution, where every branch of government, including the supreme Court is exceeding it’s limitations granted it; an uneducated citizenry willing to allow what they perceive is honorable interpretations/intentions when there is ample evidence to the contrary…

      Why not simply read our Declaration, Federalist Papers and our Founders own words? Wouldn’t it behoove us to return to the very instruments that serves as guide and unambiguously enumerates what the requirement is to attain presidency?

      Not what others state is the requirement; whereby eliminating intent, language and actual dictionary terms of the times and applying modern language to change what their real meaning is- to serve their own purposes?

    • greywolfrs

      How exactly will that end it? If you had not noticed, ALL the judges on the SCOTUS make shit up as they see fit. They ALL vote down party lines. (for the most part) They are no longer actually trying to follow the Constitution. If the SCOTUS was actually trying to follow whether the cases they hear are Constitutional, it would take a unanimous decision, either way. No more 5-4 6-3, 9-0 or 0-9, PERIOD.

      In the end, the problem stems from people  applying their own definition to the words, rather than looking at the definition of the words when they were written. People who want to interpret the Constitution are the people who want to change it and the judges are doing exactly that.

  • Pachy Serrano

    It funny how things are seeing by the conservative pundits when it is one of their guys. This story could also be used to have a serious conversation about the children of “illegal immigrants” who are born in the US. Are we put more weight on “citizenship” on the parents born in the US or the children born in our land??

    • Mick Deering

      yep, is sure is funny how things are seeing by the conservative pundits  sheesh

      it is only a footnote of interpretive commentary on the 14th amendment that can be contorted to mean children born of illegal aliens are citizens of any other country than their parents.  the amendment, in part, was to guarantee citizenship to childreen of freed slaves, not to anyone who managed to hop the border and whelp on this side.

    • greywolfrs

      You know what is funny? Your lack of knowledge about the Constitution. You lack of knowledge as to when and why certain things in the Bill of Rights were modified. So, in summation: YOU, fudgepacker.

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    This isn’t a “new birther movement”, this is called the rule of law which applies to everyone equally. Glenn shows his lack of commitment to the truth by asserting such and demeaning Conservatives.

    To answer this very easy question on whether Cruz or Obama are eligible, all one has to do is find the definition of “natural born Citizen”, to which we find in Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations Book I Ch. XIX § 212-217:

    § 212 “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. The society is
    supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own
    preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each
    citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
    becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of
    the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit
    consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of
    discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the
    society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the
    country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a
    citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the
    place of his birth, and not his country.”

    Now, if someone else can provide another definition of natural born Citizen before the ratification of the US Constitution, then please do so.

    We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men.

    • Rosebud Law

      THANK YOU!!  Awesome post about Natural Born Citizens.  Good to know that there are lots of people that think like I do.  I find it strange that we have a country full of lawyers, and the lawyers in Congress and the media can’t understand that simple fact.

    • Anonymous

      The constitution doesn’t define ‘natural born citizen.’ There has been decades, centuries really, of juridical wrangling over what this term means. Vattel’s definition has no legal authority, regardless of when it was first published. He’s simply another eighteenth-century political philosopher. Do you refer to Hume’s writings on the idea of “inalienable rights” when seeking a proper definition of this term?

      • The Blue Tail Gadfly

        The Constitution isn’t a dictionary so why would they include a definition?

        Common sense tells us that natural born Citizen clearly has a different meaning that just Citizen since it is only used in regards to the eligibility of the POTUS.

        “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to
        provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
        administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that
        the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor
        devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” John Jay witting to George Washington 1787

        For those who don’t know who John Jay is, he was one of the authors of The Federalist and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (among many other things)

        Where is another definition of natural born Citizen prior to the ratification of the Constitution that disputes the definition given by Vattel?

        If you cannot find one, then that makes your argument moot.

        I can show that the Founders did indeed reference Vattel’s work, so they would be “privy” to his definition.

        “… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It
        came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state
        make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
        Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own
        public library here, and sending the other to the College of
        Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” Benjamin Franklin 1775

        Re: “Do you refer to Hume’s writings on the idea of “inalienable rights” when seeking a proper definition of this term?”

        If that was the source of the term then yes I would, but I don’t believe it is.

        BTW, it is “unalienable rights” not “inalienable”, there is a major difference.

        • Anonymous

          There really is no meaningful difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable.” Read a usage dictionary and not some paranoid blog.

          Yes, indeed, the constitution is not a dictionary, yet it defines and outlines much of the legal and political framework of an entire nation–is it too much to ask for a clause following “natural born citizen” that defines the term? Apparently. 

          But as a constitutional constructionist you’re in a bind, because you too have to look outside the holy document for an answer. 

          • Anonymous


            “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

          • The Blue Tail Gadfly

            I will concede your point about inalienable and unalienable if we agree that both mean:

            “incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”

            Some, like the Missouri Court of Appeals, has re-defined “inalienable” to mean:

            “Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.”

            So as you can see, words don’t always have the same meanings as they once did and need to be verified.

            Like in your last statement:

            “But as a constitutional constructionist you’re in a bind, because you too have to look outside the holy document for an answer.”

            If you would be so kind as to define constitutional constructionist for me, it would be of great help.

            Since I am not in a bind by referencing other sources than just the Constitution to understand its intent and principles, that would suggest something is wrong in your assessment.

            Is it in your premise or the conclusion?


          • Marny

            Okay, Mr. Smarty-Pants Gadfly, if your “opinion” is so correct, the only “factual” one in existence, and the last word on the proper interpretation of the United States Constitution, explain to me, please, why it is that YOU pay SS taxes, YOU put up with the abortion laws, and YOU will be, if not already, complying with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  I agree with you that NONE of these things is Constitutional – no argument about that – from what I know about the Constitution and I have studied it thoroughly for several years now.  I do not rely on any corrupt government or court to tell me what any of it means – I can read it for myself – But I want to know what THEY THINK IT MEANS AND WHY so that I can more effectively work to try to make changes.  I most certainly do not agree with what John Roberts did with the health care law, however, what I believe the Constitution says or does not say does not change anything regarding the laws Congress passes or who they decide is eligible to run for and become president.  Neither does what you believe have any effect on that – obviously.  And, yes, I agree that Mr. Maskell’s opinions do not always jive with what I believe the Constitution to say.  Since at least the time of Woodrow Wilson we have had socialists working hard to hi-jack our Constitution and so far, they have done a pretty good job.  My argument is NOT what SHOULD BE, but WHAT IS!

            My posts were only intended to explain WHY we are in this mess and from whence these ideas and opinions have come that have formed the template for the way Congress does business.  If Congress adhered to ONLY your insistence that “The Law of Nations”  is the end-all definition of the eligibility clause, we would not be having this argument – but they DO NOT, right or wrong.  To me, it is educational to learn and understand WHY Congress does not adhere to just “The Law of Nations” or the “Common Law”, and in order to do that, it is necessary to consider all the court cases, treatises, Guidebooks, Text Books, Supreme Court Justices’ opinions, scholars opinions, etc., that have ever been considered in determining Congress’ opinion and declaration of what a natural born citizen is. If we cannot understand WHY someone thinks the way they do, then how can we ever hope to effect change that will bring us back to the strict “truth” of that revered document. This straying away did not happen overnight and will not be fixed that way either.

            You seem to paint me with a very broad brush without knowing much of anything about me – implying that I am ignorant, uneducated and something other than conservative.  I don’t believe that I have done that to you, other than saying in this post that you are a “smarty-pants” with a closed mind to any thought process other than your own.  I am sorry that so many with the same thought process you seem to have react in the same way to any other process that is able to back up its contentions with “facts”.  Sadly, our government DOES NOT operate under your strict interpretation of the Constitution.  I wish it did.

            But, sir – a closed mind is a one-way street to nowhere.   

        • Guest

          For the accepted definition of ‘natujral born’ that was in use at the time of the framing, and for examples of cases related to it, go here:

          “According to the Supreme Court, words
          and phrases used, but not defined, within the Constitution, should “be
          read in light of British common law,” since the U.S. Constitution is
          “framed in the language of the English common law.”
          The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and
          there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal
          Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have
          derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington
          during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of
          Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as
          there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or
          royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and
          scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to
          the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing
          of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship
          was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the
          states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law
          principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil,
          even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by
          the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American
          colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail
          under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. So again,  in textual
          constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not
          defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be
          read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed
          in the language of the English common law.” 

          In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and
          references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have
          clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to
          its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying
          military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by
          birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S.
          citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling
          American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s
          parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be

          Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled
          law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues
          raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens.
          From historical material and case law, it appears that the common
          understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American
          colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law
          meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory
          laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children
          born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).
          The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion, as well as the
          consistent case law in the United States, also supports the notion that
          “natural born Citizen” means one who is a U.S. citizen “at birth” or “by
          birth.” The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis
          and Interpretation, notes that “whatever the term ‘natural born’
          means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘naturalized,’” and,
          after discussing historical and legal precedents and arguments,
          concludes that “there is reason to believe … that the phrase
          includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.”
          Vattels philosophical treatise that you like to refer to,   in the editions available at the time of
          the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, did not actually use, either in
          the original French or in English interpretations at that time, the
          specific term “natural born citizens.” It was not until after the
          adoption of the Constitution in the United States that a translator
          interpreted the French in Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to include,
          in English, the term “natural born citizens” for the first time, and
          thus that particular interpretation and creative translation of the
          French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite, could not possibly have
          influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787.”

          • The Blue Tail Gadfly

            Strange, your reply isn’t in my dash and my first response disappeared.

            Pretty funny it takes your expert 50 pages to twist reality and facts enough to come up with that nonsense.

            Do you always grab the first thing you find that supports your argument or did you actually read and agree with all that?

            Not that I am accusing you of being part of the Republican establishment, but your arguments are identical.

            Might want to contemplate on that and this:


            Of course you always have the choice of staying closed minded and refuse to read it.

          • Guest

             The source didn’t twist anything. Facts are facts and Huldah’s opinions are opinions – as are yours.You need to be more open minded and stop  getting sucked into Huldahs justifications and twisted reality just because they support something you want to believe.

          • Marny

            If anyone has a closed mind, Blue Tail, it is YOU!  Education of the masses, as you referred to in an earlier post to me, IS NOT based SOLELY on ONE SOURCE as you are attempting to ENFORCE.  And, referring to other LEGITIMATE court cases and scholarly opinions as “irrelevant” only confirms your closed mind.  I am guessing that you did not look any of them up, much less actually READ them for fear they would not support YOUR misguided opinion. 

            Guest is absolutely correct.  It seems to me that it is YOU who has grabbed the first thing that supports YOUR argument.  Nonetheless, I reiterate, there has been NO SUPREME COURT ruling that specifically and definitively defines ‘natural-born-citizen’ as used in the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  So, until there is, I suppose the argument will rage on.  However, citizenship eligibility of all those wishing to run and/or actually become President, will continue to be determined by the diktat of Congress based upon the conclusions of those who are empowered to advise them on such matters, the CRS. 

            You don’t have to like it but you DO have to live with it.  It seems to me that until a way can be found to change the way things are currently done, it would be prudent to remember the prayer, (paraphrased), that begs God to give me the strength to change the things I can; to endure those that I cannot; and the WISDOM to know the difference. 

          • The Blue Tail Gadfly

            Your understanding of American Federalism and the rule of law is quite shameful, along with your denial of facts.

            “NONE of the things you mention in your 2nd paragraph (Social Security, Abortion, The New Deal, Obama Care) are Constitutional in MY OPINION, however, my opinion obviously is NOT what counts.”~”Marny”


            If you don’t know that it is a fact those policies are unconstitutional and have to rely on a corrupt federal government to tell you what the Constitution means, then you have a education problem at best.

            If you couldn’t spot the obvious errors in Jack Maskell’s paper, either you refuse to acknowledge it or too ignorant to know any better.

            Either way, it is a waste of time to try to argue with someone who cannot reason well or refuses to reason well.

            Whatever you are, you are no Conservative.


    • Marny

      Then please provide us with the “official ruling”, chapter and verse “in the law of the United States of America” or in the “opinion” of the Congressional Research Service with their staff of over 400 lawyers, scholars, researchers, etc., which is a legitimate “arm” of the legislative branch and which has been providing Congress with well researched and documented answers to these unclear issues for 100 years.  This question is NOT NEW and was decided LONG AGO and it does not matter what you or I THINK.  Emerich de Vattel, whom you quote, wrote this Treatise in 1758 and he was a Frenchman and this was merely HIS OPINION of what a natural born citizen should be by his observations of what was going on in France.  Since there were so few scholarly “opinions” on this issue at the time, Vattel’s “opinion” was quoted in a few cases by Supeme Court Justices regarding other citizenship cases – NONE were about who should or should not be eligible to serve as President of the United States.  Vattel’s “opinion” is NOT “the rule of law” in the United States of America, as you state, but merely the “opinion” of a scholarly Frenchman.  I, like you, tend to agree with Vattel that this should logcally be what natural born means, but alas, the Supreme Court HAS NEVER RULED ON THIS QUESTION, so it remains what it has been for 100 years, and by that definition not only Barack Obama but Ted Cruz ARE BOTH ELIGIBLE. 

      • The Blue Tail Gadfly

        “Congressional Research Service with their staff of over 400 lawyers, scholars, researchers”

        Sorry, that doesn’t mean anything. What other definition do you have for natural born Citizen than the one given by Vattel?

        • Marny

          Unfortunately, Blue Tail, it DOES mean something.  Please visit for the complete Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement” in PDF form dated November 14, 2011.  Apparently a lot of folks have never heard of the CRS.  This august arm of the legislative branch, through the Library of Congress, provides Congress with the research and legal opinions it needs to make its decisions on questions such as this.  Other than that, I have an entire paper written on the various court cases, treatises, scholarly opinions, what-have-you that have all been used in the Justices’ decisions and opinions.  Most importantly, NONE of these court cases has ever been specifically about PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY.  Presidential eligibility has been MENTIONED in many of them, in passing, as the courts were attempting to decide what defined citizenship in cases ranging from women being allowed to vote to who has the right to own property in certain states and whether or not a person who was born abroad and lived abroad for years could be allowed to come to the United States and pick up all rights of ctizenship bestowed upon him by a parent.  All interesting cases and viewpoints but NEVER a definitive opinion specifically on who can run for and become president. 

          • The Blue Tail Gadfly


            Are you implying that they are 100% correct on every issue and therefore cannot be wrong?

            Have you heard of Social Security, Abortion, The New Deal, and Obama Care?

            According to your standards, those are perfectly constitutional because the politicians, bureaucrats, and Supreme Court has told us so.

            You have yet to provide another definition of natural born Citizen prior to the ratification of the Constitution.

            What other definition did the Framers go by then if not of Vattel’s?

            BTW, if you are going to talk about having all these court cases and legal opinions that back up your assertions, then c/p the links so we may all be enlightened by their wisdom.



          • Marny

            BTG, you are missing the point.  NONE of the things you mention in your 2nd paragraph are Constitutional in MY OPINION, however, my opinion obviously is NOT what counts.  What does count is what Congress ultimately thinks and does.  Unfortunately, ALL those things in your 2nd paragraph were approved by Congress and SIGNED INTO LAW.  We now are forced to live with those things regardless of what we may think about them.  We can bitch and moan until the cows come home but NOTHING WILL CHANGE unless and until we can somehow persuade Congress to repeal and/or defund. The decisions Congress makes are supposed to reflect the opinions and desires of those they represent but when that ceases being the case, then we have what we have.  Bottom line: We MUST change Congress’ opinion to match ours.

            If I were to list here all my sources, court cases, links, etc., it would take up the rest of the available space on this blog.  However, if you will simply google some of the ones I am about to mention perhaps you will be able to research them yourself.

            The Constitution, as you know, was ratified and went into effect on March 4, 1789, BEFORE these cases were brought.  At the time of ratification, only the Common Law (that originated in Great Britian) and de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” were in existence for guidance, however, it has been pointed out (in the Albany Law Journal) that if the Framers of the Constitution had intended that ONLY a citizen born on the soil to two parents who are also citizens, it would only have been necessary to write “no person, except a native-born citizen”…but the Framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens or a citizen owing allegiance to the United States, at the time of his birth.  Since you are arguing that NOTHING counts except what was available at the time of ratification, then my listing of these other opinions is likely of no use to you.

            Some cases to consider:  Murray v. The Charming Betsy (1804) 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 64, 119, 2 L.Ed. 208, 226; M’Creery v. Somerville (1824), 9 Wheat, (22 U.S.) 354, 6 L.Ed. 109; an 1825 Treatise by William Rawle, former U.S. Attorney for the State of PA; Emerich de Vattel’s Treatise, “The Law of Nations” (1758); Minor v. Happersett (1872); Dred Scott v. Sanford; U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark: Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justce’s Guidebook (1840); Plessy v. Ferguson; Lynch v. Clarke; Perkins v. Elg (1939); and more recent opinions from the end of last century and the beginning of this one.

            According to the CRS Report of 2000, most Constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the parents who are citizens and this even means only one citizen parent.  In a 2008 Michigan Law Review article written by a Law Professor from the University of Illinois, it is further asserted that only one citizen parent is required.

            Several courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates on a presidential ballot.  Alternatively however, there is a statutory method by which the eligibility of a President-Elect waiting to take office can be challenged in Congress but that must take place BEFORE the President-Elect takes office.  Elections and seating of presidents do have consequences and meaning.

            None of this is MY OPINION in particular but is the opinion of Congress and those who advise them and consequently, determines how our system is run.  Altough you may adamantly declare that none of this is pertinent because it did not occur before or at the time of ratification of the Constitution – and you may be correct – it is of no consequence unless you become the determinant and advising source to Congress and can make them adhere to your wise counsel. Whether you realize it or not, I do mostly agree with you, but as I have repeatedly said, you and I DO NOT run the show.  You might also be interested in

          • The Blue Tail Gadfly

            The question is still, what does natural born Citizen mean?

            To which you cannot cite a definition, where as I have.

            Your numerous papers don’t give any definition other than their convoluted OPINIONS of what they want natural born Citizen to mean.

            Lawyers, Congress, nor the Courts can change the law by simply redefining the meaning of words.

            RE: “We can bitch and moan until the cows come home but NOTHING WILL CHANGE unless and until we can somehow persuade Congress to repeal and/or defund.”

            First you have to educate the populace, which you are working against by citing irrelevant cases that allow for this continued lawlessness.

            You may also want to re-read this thread. Glenn Beck is the one who is “bitching and moaning” about people who wish to uphold the supreme law of the land. I am simply trying to educate people to what those laws actually say.

            There is really nothing more to say, I have said my piece and you, yours. I am content to let the readers decide for themselves who is right.

            If you would like to keep arguing this, you can go to these links and argue with the constitutional attorneys there who say otherwise and educate them. Don’t waste your time with little ol’ me.



        • Guest

           Vattel’s opinions do not count as our laws.

          • Anonymous

            You are absolutely wrong.
            Our Founders were in accord with Vattel.
            In 1779 Charles Dumas (Republican vs Monarchical) sent Benjamin Franklin 3 copies.

            Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.”…–“Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787.”–Educate yourself if you seriously desire to reverse what is assuredly the destruction of our Republic.–This unadulterated “tit-for-tat”- read, attacking a strict Constitutional interpretation of our Founders actual words- is NOT a Conservative position, but one of dissemination to redirect the focus away from the what the hell is destroying our Nation from within.


          • Guest

            language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by
            reference to the common law and to the British institutions as they were
            when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers
            of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the
            Conventions of the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the
            atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary.
            They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient,
            and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of
            many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form
            of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of
            the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily

            have argued that the relevant common meaning
            of natural born citizen that was prevalent in 18th century America
            should not be the one that was actually applicable in the American
            colonies during that time from British statutory and common law, and
            which was adopted specifically by the states after independence in 1776
            (and which, as noted by Justice Story, formed the “foundation” for
            American jurisprudence), but rather should be recognized as one derived
            from what has been described as a “philosophical treatise”
            on the law of nations by a Swiss legal philosopher in the mid-1700s.
            This particular treatise, however, in the editions available at the time
            of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, did not actually use, either
            in the original French or in English interpretations at that time, the
            specific term “natural born citizens.” It was not until after the
            adoption of the Constitution in the United States did a translator
            interpret the French in Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to include,
            in English, the term “natural born citizens” for the first time, and
            thus that particular interpretation and creative translation of the
            French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite, could not possibly have
            influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787. 

            The treatise in question by Emmerich de Vattel was a work concerning the
            “law of nations,” which we would now classify generally as
            “international law.” However, the concept of citizenship within a
            particular country is one governed not by international law or law of
            nations, but rather is governed by municipal law, that is, the internal
            law of each country. Vattel’s writings on citizenship by “descent”
            reflected in many circumstances what the law or practice may have been
            in certain European nations at the time—that is, that citizenship
            followed the nationality or citizenship of one’s father, as opposed to
            the place of birth. This concept, although prevalent on the European
            Continent was, even as expressly noted in Vattel’s work itself, clearly
            not the law in England or thus the American colonies, and clearly was
            not the concept and common understanding upon which U.S. law was based.

            Furthermore, and on a more basic level, the influence of the work of
            Vattel on the framers in employing the term “natural born” in relation
            to domestic citizenship within the Constitution is highly speculative at
            best, is without any direct historical evidence, and is contrary to the
            mainstream principles of constitutional interpretation and analysis
            within American jurisprudence. Although it appears that there is one
            single reference by one delegate at the Federal Convention of 1787 to
            Vattel (in reference to several works of different authors to support an
            argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed
            Congress), there is no other reference to the work in the entire
            notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings of the Federal
            Convention of 1787, and specifically there is no reference or
            discussion of the work at all in relation to citizenship at the
            Convention, in the Federalist Papers, or in any of the state
            ratifying conventions. 

            It would appear to be somewhat fanciful to contend that in employing
            terms in the U.S. Constitution the framers would disregard the specific
            and express meaning of those precise terms in British common law, the
            law in the American colonies, and subsequently in all of the states in
            the United States after independence, in favor of secretly using,
            without comment or explanation, a contrary, non-existent English
            translation of a phrase in a French-language treatise on international

          • Marny

            Exactly right, Guest!  Just what I have been trying to get across in way too many words.  Thanks!

  • Anonymous

    Why not!

  • Sam Fisher

    Do you guys have anything better to do? If you don’t like the man vote him out it so simple it might just work.

  • Suzanne St John Rombach

    He is not eligible to be president (neither is Rubio, Jindal or ovomit) since he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, a requirement of our Constitution.  Meaning both parents of the child born in the US must be US citizens at the time of the birth.  It’s is just that simple.

    • Anonymous

      you are slightly wrong, a child born within the borders of the United States of America is a natural born citizen of the United States of America, that’s why a lot of illegals come here to give birth to their child (anchor baby) to become citizen also, due to the child being a citizen by birth, see Bill of Rights Amendment 14 Section 1

      • Bear

        Not true. Suzanne has it right. In order to be NATURAL born one must have 2 citizen parents at the time of birth & be born on American soil. From Vattel’s law of nations which is the Founders’ source . Born to 1 citizen parent = citizen, not natural born citizen. There is a difference. Also, the big C say anyone born here UNDER OUR JURISDICTION (didn’t mean to yell, just emphasize those words since most everyone ignores them) is a citizen. Illegals are not under our jurisdiction since they didn’t report being here.

        Prior to zer0bama’s usurpation of the office Ted Cruz would not be eligible because of his dual citizenship. But, zer0 tore down that wall. 

        Ted C in 2016

        • Anonymous

          Just because Comrade Obama got around the law doesn’t make it OK for future usurpers to do the same.  It’s important that we return to the Constitution, and illegal precedent does not have the weight of law.

          • jackw97224

            Unfortunately, I just found United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which indicates the opposite of Minor v. Happersett, I think (these court explanations are difficult to decypher).

            To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within
            the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a
            subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese

            The Appellant(United States) explicitly, albeit unsuccessfully, argued that the District
            Court erred in ruling “that the respondent is a natural-born citizen.” The
            Supreme Court affirmed that ruling of the District Court.

            Below is a larger excerpt of the Appellant (United States) LOSING Brief.
            After that, I present excerpts from the Respondent (Appellee Won Kim Ark)
            WINNING Brief which delivered a serious, directly on point, beat down to what is
            now birther blather. At the end is the very brief “Brief of Argument” from
            Respondent Wong’s Reply Brief.

            In the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1895

          • Anonymous

             Case law or ‘presidence’ DOES NOT OVER RULE THE CONSTITUTION. Only Amending the Constitution does.

        • jackw97224

          I think you are correct, Mr. Bear. Minor v. Happersett (1874) does it for me, if it is still holding.

        • Anonymous

           Exactly Bear. I wish these so called Constutionalists would “do their homework” and instead of spouting hatred, actually READ VATTEL! But it is easier to scream “birther” than learn THE TRUTH.

      • Anonymous

         Not true Hoschi, the Founders used Vattels Law of Nations, Section 112(not Blackstone’s as we had just fought the British for our freedom so they chose France’s Vattels laws of nations) to determine TWO citizen parents make one a Natural Born Citizen . Other wise you are just a citizen. It all has to do with allegiences thet went through the fathers nation at the time of writing the Constitution. To change it, you need to Amend the Constitution.

    • Anonymous

      This is a tiresome issue. Have you even read the Constitution and any applicable amendments? You are a natural born citizen if you have just one parent as a citizen regardless of the location or if you are born on U.S. soil. Cruz has an American born mother (a U.S. citizen).Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen. Mitt Romney’s parents were both U.S. citizens and he was born here. His grandparent’s were also both U.S. citizens. They were living in a settlement in Mexico, where U.S. citizens had gone to settle. When circumstances began to get bad there they brought their children back to the U.S. where they grew up. Romney’s father was a self made millionaire who started with nothing (a real American success story), and also became a Governor in Michigan. Romney himself gave away his inheritance and he and his wife started with nothing and repeated the success (also an American success story). I think you better look closer at the constitution you show a great deal of ignorance. I believe Rubio was born here so he would be eligible, I do not know about Jindal I would not be surprised to find that he too was born here. And he has done such an amazing job in Louisiana after decades of liberals left it a mess, that people should really look at this guy. He has a real positive track record.

      • Anonymous

        I actually admire Ted Cruz greatly.  He is courageous and a true conservative, unlike loudmouth Chris Christie, the RINO from NJ.

        • Pachy Serrano

          What’s your point? He still was not born in any of the US states . . . At least Obama was born in US and Christie as well. That’s why is hard to be credible for many conservatives. They change their perspective depending if he/she is one of them . . . But, he still can be a President due to his American mother. That’s a fact!

          • Anonymous

            Are you really that dense?  What do you mean “What’s your point?” 

            I think it is obvious that SEBtopdog is simply stating his/her admiration for Ted Cruz and his conservative principles, but not for Christie because of his lack of conservative bonafides.  SEBtopdog is not making an arugment one way or the other for either politician and their qualifications as a natural born citizen.  Your argument that both are eligible to be president is correct and also misdirected.

          • Anonymous

            barry’s paternal grandmother said “barry was born in here Kenya”.  this was reported by a (democrat) former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general or some such who brought this matter to the forefront 5 years ago to nought. Not at all my biggest grievance with the man serving in oval office. b/t/w

          • Anonymous

            If he truly was born in the US, what iS his problem showing his real birth certificate? Is he ashamed of his grades, OR is he hiding something else? You people can’t be that DUMB!

      • William Henry Bowen

        cdl123, you are not completely correct in your 3rd sentence. Over the years the U.S. Code Title 8 has changed regarding conferrence of American citizenship at birth if you are physically born outside U.S. soil. In 1961 at least one parent had to be a U.S. citizen AND that parent had to be at least 19 years old at the time of birth, so if OBastard was physically born outside the U.S. he was NOT a citizen at birth. The rules where changed in the 1965 Immigration Law, and the age requirement was eliminated.

        Jindal was born in the U.S. but neither of his parents where citizens at the time (they where both legal alien Green Card holders).

        • Anonymous

          If you re read my comment, you will notice that I said and applicable amendments. This would address any changes in the laws over time. Currently, it only takes one parent as a U.S. citizen to make someone a citizen.

      • faxxmaxx

        As tiresome as you think this topic is, you are wrong. Look it up on the government’s website. It clearly states that if a child is born abroad BOTH parents must be US citizens. The constitution allowed for the fact that, at the time of the writing, most men of eligibility were born in Britain, therefore a concession was made.
        I’d also like to point out the fact that any allowance given to non eligible candidates will set a precedent which will open the door for anyone in the future. Obama is a good example of that kind of danger. Just because you may like Cruz or Rubio, you must look into the future. How would you feel if a Saudi ran for president? Only a natural born citizen loves his country. The founders knew exactly what they were doing.

        • Anonymous

           Vattels Law of Nations, Section 112…to be exact.

        • Anonymous

          I understand that but other laws have been created that allows a child of one U.S. citizen to be a citizen. I agree with the allowance factor, but we can thank Ted Kennedy who pushed the changes. I would go back to the original laws and interpretations. But sadly, I don’t have that power.

        • Anonymous

          I would rather have Fidel Castro than the lying Muslim Barry what’s his name.  We don’t even know who is father is since his mother was a
          tramp, who left him to his grandmother.

          • Anonymous

            you love the taste of cock

          • Pachy Serrano

            What u have to insult the President’s mom? Am sure in your family you may have few ugly ducklins as well. Every family does . . . Thanks God he had good decent grandparents. He made it!! against all odds. That’s a true American story.

          • Anonymous

            Just about anyone could with George Sorous pushing them, as we have seen!

      • Anonymous

        @cdl123, you are wrong, they are only a simple citizen, NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Vattels Law of Nations, used by the FOunders to write the Constitution, look it up, 2 Citizen Parents! Swction 112. LOOK IT UP! YOU TOO GLENN.

        • Anonymous

          Check more recent laws.

          • Anonymous

             you can’t amend the Constitution by ‘law’, only by Amending it.

        • Anonymous

          Are you considering the Muslim N Chief’s new Constitution????

    • Anonymous

      “Meaning both parents of the child born in the US must be US citizens”.
      Being a natural born citizen does not require “both” parents to be US citizens.
      Jane Randolph Jefferson, President Jefferson’s mother, was born in Shadwell Parish, Tower Hamlets, London….. Really, the abject ignorance of some of you people on this topic is endless— including Glenn Beck.
      Yes, Obama’s on-line birth certificate is a 100% phony. 
      Yes, Obama’s background is very suspicious, indeed. Joe Arpaio and Jerome Corsi have both uncovered incontrovertible evidence that Obama is not telling the truth about his background. 
      Hey! Beck! Why don’t you and your clown-men invite somebody on who understands the issue and have an honest debate. The truth is probably to be found somewhere in the middle.

      • Anonymous

        Flail away….

    • jackw97224

      I agree if the following supreme court ruling is still holding.

      U.S. Supreme Court

      Minor v. Happersett,
      88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

      Minor v. Happersett

      88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162




      1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the
      idea of membership in a nation.

      2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents
      (note born of means cannot be two homosesxuals, plural parents, meaning 2
      people, man and woman and both parents must be citizens) within
      the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of
      the United states, as much so before the adoption of
      the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.

    • Anonymous

       Thank you Suzanne, people refuse to believe the truth and have drunk the kool-aide force down their throats at the government indoctrination centers called public schools. Unfortunately even Glenn and Company. They alll could have been born in center of Washington, DC but theri fathers ARE STILL NOT CITIZENS! So they are not Natural Born Citizens.

    • Anonymous

      I guess you will vote for the Liar N Chief for a third term.

      It appears that you believe ” Mr. Hide all facts, tell no truths” is eligible.

      Go call someone on your “Obama Phone”.

      • Anonymous

        Resorting to name calling/ insinuations to disparage another is a tactic of one who has no argument.

        You resort to this tactic when you have no way to ascertain what you insinuate.

        • greywolfrs

          That is not always the case. I see plenty of idiots making moronic posts. I am just crass enough to call a spade, a spade.

          • Anonymous

            See above post.

            What you assert, is to allow or give license to your bad behavior.

            And thus you become what you say you are fighting against.

        • Sam Fisher

          I just do it because I am sick with auguring my point to idiots that refuse to listen.

          • Anonymous

            In such a way you become what you abhor, Sam.

            Why sink to that level? What is lacking in you that you allow others-an unknown quantity (anonymous poster)- to redirect your standards of conduct?

            This isn’t about debate/argument…it never has been about that.

            This is about Truths. What separates us from ones who have no absolutes in what is “right vs wrong”, which is fundamental for a society to survive and thrive.

            That includes where we come from, how we arrived from whence we came, (our Founders rejection of their home country’s wrongs and history’s failures) and for God’s sake understanding human nature (which is predictable and fallen).


            To repeat history (as Rome) and succumb to base (emotional/reactive) human conditions without understanding the world and the people who came before us-is to repeat history and a sure fire way for our Republic to BECOME History.

    • Jim Cutting

      Yes and it has been ruled on by the Supreme court Several times in history.   I did have a link on my Twitter account about this and why millions of people have sworn not to vote for any ticket with a NON Natural born citizen on as president or VP.  So Let Cruz run and give the democrats another 4 years with either Hillary(Crooked Liar) or another 4 for the Fraud in WH!!!

    • Johnny Ringo

      Considering what you just said, why is Obama a citizen? You said both parents?

      • Anonymous

         In that stricter definition Obama isn’t a ‘natural born’ citizen.

    • Matthew D. Hudson

      Thank you…Someone on here that has done some research and knows what our founders intended. This in the one thing that makes blood shot right out of my eyes about Glenn. He spouts the Constitution but not when it comes to the NBC topic because he can’t take the heat.

  • Anonymous

    so someone like cruz who has the guts to go up against our esteemed political establishment is getting the once over, but a guy who wouldn’t release his birth certificate, has several different social security numbers, won’t release his grades, is know to have attended a muslim school, his father is a muslim, HIM we have no problem with.   Can this country get any crazier.  Look at the how well we are doing for getting a “nobody” to run it, never had a job, never in the military and believes his own BS. cheez

    • soybomb315

       What does glenn mean by “not again…” 

      Does that mean glenn did not support the first birther movement?  Glenn does not want his audience to ‘question with boldness’?

      • Bonnie Somer

        Ted Cruz has put to rest all that the left is starting to do to him like they did to allen west the good ones they always go after i am sure dr ben carson would b on that hit list quick so would mike lee or trey gowdy rand paul for sure.   Go Ted hit him where it hurt obamas life is made up b/c his real one is hidden anyone can buy a birth certificate but his records sealed um food for thought

    • kiwovexateg

      мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт…­ ­ViewMore——————————————&#46qr&#46net/kAgk

      I would rather have Fidel Castro than the lying Muslim Barry what’s his
      name.  We don’t even know who is father is since his mother was a
      tramp, who left him to his grandmother.

      • Anonymous

        The only thing you need to know about Obama is he is your boss.  He controls your life, elections have consequences.  Deal with it.!

        • Pachy Serrano

          I could not put it in better terms Vacmancan. Its that simple! If conservatives want Mr. Obama out . . . wait til 2016.

          • Anonymous

            we’re are waiting as patiently as possible.

          • Anonymous

            Why Do People Talk Of 2016 if we dontfundobamacare there will be no more elections. he wont let go of power he will be dictator in chief of the ‘citizens of the world.’ with the Dept of INjustice IRSS as his “Civilian National Police Force Just As Well Funded as the Military.” and its not obamacare its the obamadontcare Law or UNaffordable Act cuz he doesn’t care bout anyone but himself the anti-American-Islam-Terrorist!

        • Anonymous

          not so fast, Johnny. He is the President. An office of public service. The highest in the land, albeit, but a public servant nonetheless. He’s not my boss. He doesn’t control my life. We are dealing with the consequences of his election.

        • greywolfrs

          Obamao does NOT control my life and is NOT my boss. You are a moron of the highest order.

        • Paul

          Not much longer

    • Pachy Serrano

      Obama was born in US dumb ass! Cruz did not. But, does not matter, Cruz can be our President as well if he wins (which I hardly doubt it). However, the “nobody” you talking about is your President too and won twice. I think is time for you to put up and shut up.

      • greywolfrs

        It is time for you to S T F U. Obamao is not my president. I did not vote for him either time. Just because you fools did, does not make him my president.

        • Anonymous

          You’re kinda’ cute when you get all feisty and rebellious. :)
          Who doesn’t love a bad boy? 

      • Anonymous

        HUSSEIN-Obama did not win legally and their will be no more legal elections…the left,as long as Anti-Semetic-Nazi-Jew GeorgeSchwarz-Soros controls Washington Politicians and Electronic Voting!

    • Anonymous

      Most people in Beck’s audience are concerned about Obama’s birth certificate because of the whole black thing. Cruz is just pasty enough to get a pass. A pasty pass!

  • longliveUSA

    Liberals being hypocrites again. Nothing new.

  • Anonymous

    Another example of how funny politics can be. Especially in the world of the looney right. 

    Most conservatives are against gay marriage and socialized medicine…yet in the last election they had to vote for Mitt Romney–the first governor in American history to actually sign off on both those things. 

    Many conservatives were convinced that Obama was born outside the US, and thus ineligible to be president…but in this upcoming election they may have to vote for a man who ACTUALLY was born outside the US. 

    LOL! You gotta love it.

    But I don’t think Cruz will get the nomination. The final showdown is going to be Rand Paul vs Chris Christie. And Christie is going to rip Lil Junior to shreds. We saw what happened in their last spat: Paul picked a fight, than ran with his tail between his legs when he saw how aggressive Christie could be.

    • wilbert Robichaud

      ” Many conservatives were convinced that Obama was born outside the US”

       I think you are watching way to much MSNBC.. It was the Democrats who claimed that Obama was not born in the US.. Phillip Berg was a Hilary Clinton supporter, when she and BHO were running for the democrats Nomination, and he was the one who started this absurd idea….. MSNBC has done its best to never tell it’s viewers, the little they have left, that simple fact, that The Democrats are the Birthers.

      • Anonymous

        LOL! Nice try. But everyone knows that it was almost entirely conservatives behind the birther nonsense. 
        Is Donald Trump not a conservative? Michele Bachman? Mike Huckabee? And the polls of GOP voters showed that huge chunks of them openly admitted to being birthers. Even your own Fox News reported a poll that showed up to 37 percent of republicans and FORTY ONE percent of Tea Partiers believed that Obama was born outside the USA. 

        But I can see why you guys now have to back off from this and try and spin it. It caused you guys an enormous amount of embarrassment, didn’t it? 

      • Anonymous

         Whether it was Clinton supporters who started it you can’t deny that conservatives were the ones who really picked up the ball and ran with it.

    • greywolfrs

      Again, you are wrong, conservatives have the OPTION to vote for the Libertarian. Which party do you left wing morons have as an alternative? My bad: you morons don’t have one and you have the never to call us intolerant and stupid…

  • Take 2

    It is very clear that in order to create a 100% new born American Baby it takes a 1/2 American female and a 1/2 American male 100% PARENT or 1+1 = Parent! 

    Guess what folks = you end up with an Abomination, and the wisest group of humans ever to be drawn together (assembly or treaty) in GLOBAL (historical) histories intent is therefore or henceforth, extremely clear that Parent of a child not only equals Mans prescription BUT Gods original plan of uniting Adam and Eve, as a family/tribe.

    A 50% simply falls under 1 job or right restriction and Obama proves as an excellent xample…!

    Cruz simply cannot run or be President. Its just the rule of Parent equals ones duality i.e Simple Constitutional Law folks!  

  • Anonymous

    I’m pretty much a Beck fan except for the BIRTHER mocking.  He, Rush, and Hannity, have ALL sold the country down the drain on this one, making them PART AND PARCEL to the FRAUD playing POTUS in Washington………and all 3 of them did it to save their own cushy jobs, just like the politicians and police do.

    You don’t have to IMPEACH a Con-man.  You simply arrest him and throw him in jail and put him on trial and throw him in jai, l again, and throw away the key.

    There’s enough evidence to go to a Grand Jury but it also makes no sense why a Grand Jury has not been empaneled to hear this case.

    From top to bottom, left to right, conservatives to progressive talking heads and heads of state have sold us out……………they’re ALL traitors.   They control the mass media, and therefore control what the people can hear on a “mass level”, which is needed to act in concert for getting Obama and his ILK out.

    I have a VERY WORKABLE PLAN that can put the American government back in the hands of the Constitution loving American CITITZENS in 60 days or less.  It’s brief, SIMPLE and completely LEGAL.   If ANYONE in America has a QUICKER, more POWERFUL, and LEGAL plan, then PLEASE POST IT………WE NEED TO HEAR IT.  Otherwise THIS PLAN is the ONLY PLAN on deck and WE NEED TO DO IT NOW.   Either post a plan, poke legitimate holes in this plan, or sit down and shut up and join the rest of the traitorous talking heads.

    HERE IT IS……..

    Picture this for a moment.

    I have a “comb” that has 74 teeth in it.

    Counting each tooth to represent 1.16 MILLION legal American Citizens, consider the following.

    Using the first two teeth, on the left, their sum total is 2.32 Million American Citizens who make up the entire population of America’s Active Military Forces, ALL police officers, and ALL top echelon Public Officials. (includes the POTUS, Congress, all Governors, State Representatives, Mayors, and Community officials)

    The remaining 72 teeth add up to a total of 83.5 MILLION, Constitutionally LEGAL, American Citizens, who “legally” own guns.

    We the People, are allowing 1/10 th. of 1 tooth, (the politicians) backed by 1- 9/10 teeth (all armed military and police), to THREATEN and BULLY, 72 teeth (American armed citizens) into surrendering their RIGHTS under the Constitution, and they are OPENLY, and ACTIVELY engaged in the OVERTHROW of the United States Constitution, TO OUR FACE!!!

    This PUNY force of arrogant, CITIZENS, actually believe they are the MAJORITY force and power, and are answerable to no one, especially the “private sector” CITIZENS and PATRIOTS that write their paychecks.

    Note this……….EVERY YEAR, the 83.5 MILLION citizens in the Private Sector, become the LARGEST armed military force in the WORLD.

    This happens on OPENING DAY of “hunting season” across America, when 83.5 MILLION HUNTERS step out of their houses, into the public, fully armed, with their guns loaded, and head into the fields and woods for a two week hunting period.

    There are NO REPORTS of mass shootings or homicides or an inordinate amount of “accidents” involving OUR GUNS during that two week period, EVER.  We are Americans.  We have been raised and trained how to use and handle guns SAFELY from our youth to old age.  WE ARE TRUSTWORTHY to keep and bear arms, as our Founding Fathers knew.

    Are we going to let a MEASELY 1/10th of 1 tooth, (the politicians) to continue to dismantle the United States Constitution at EVERY LEVEL of government, when they have SWORN an Oath to “protect and defend” the very constitution they are actively engaged in destroying???

    OR…are WE THE PEOPLE going to strap on our LEGALLY owned guns, and armed with the BILL OF RIGHTS,( which have NEVER been repealed), MARCH down to our LOCAL
    government and City Counsel meetings, and DEMAND of our ELECTED officials, to STAND UP, one by one, and openly declare their own PERSONAL position on the American Citizens RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and to wear them in ALL PUBLIC VENUES, and to state, YES or NO, on whether or not ANY of the first  10 amendments to the constitution have been repealed.

    If the INDIVIDUAL answers in FULL SUPPORT of the Constitution, he/she retains their job.
    If the INDIVIDUAL answers AGAINST the Constitution and in favor of the continued Usurpation and Overthrow of our constitution through LAWS and ORDINANCES depriving the CITIZENS their constitutional RIGHTS, and ordering the local police forces to ENFORCE these laws, then that person is to be placed under CITIZENS ARREST for PERJURY, for LYING under their oath, stripped of his/her position of public office, and punished under the laws of perjury of the State, and an interim supporter of the Constitution is to be temporarily installed until new elections can be held to fill the seat.

    All Police officers are to be questioned in the same manner.

    We can STOP THIS MADNESS without having to fire a single SHOT, if WE THE PEOPLE, will simply put on our guns, and NEVER take them off again, and go to our town meetings,
    DEMANDING IMMEDIATE CHANGE, and the INSTANT REPEAL of all LOCAL laws contrary to the Constitution, and declaring such laws as UN-LAWFUL ORDERS only, and NO PERSON, public or private, is required to obey or follow an unlawful order.

    CLAIM YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGAIN, PATRIOTS and the State and Federal officials HAVE NO POWER to continue overthrowing us.

    THEN march on your State Capitals, demanding the same.  KICKING OUT OF OFFICE, immediately, those who have perjured themselves.   THEN we march on Washington D.C. and take back the Capitol.

    It’s a PIECE OF CAKE, patriots, and the PUNY 2 teeth are absolutely CRAZY if they decide they want to start shooting at us.

    Its time for WE THE PEOPLE to put a stop to all of this NONSENSE, and we can do it.
    NO LATER than Opening Day of hunting season, 2013, America………..and NEVER TAKE THEM OFF AGAIN.

    We can have our nation BACK TO IT’S ROOTS in less than 60 days, and ALL of OUR actions, are Constitutionally LEGAL .

    It’s once again time that the public officials, and police, FEAR the CITIZENS instead of the citizens fearing the politicians and police.

    An armed American citizenry is a FREE American citizenry.

    What say you……America??

    • Marny

      KKK, you are free to think whatever you like about the 3 men you mention in your post but the truth is (and they all knew this truth), the actual “rule”, if you will, that the United States of America goes by is an “opinion” of the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution that was established almost 100 years ago involving the same issue we are dealing with today.  Researchers, scholars, and lawyers all came together and decided upon a definition of natural born that allowed Chester Arthur, Christopher Schurmann, Charles Evan Hughes, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, Lowell Wicker, Roger Calero, John McCain and Barack Obama all to run and/or actually serve as President of the United States.  One of these cases goes all the way back to 1896.  All these cases were issues of place of birth and/or parent or parents who were or were not citizens.  The “birther” hoopla is just that – “hoopla” – and you and I do not get to make the decision even though we might like to.  It was made a long time ago but some of us may just now be hearing about it.  Other than that, I agree with you. 

  • jackw97224

    Hey, could Cruz be President of the US and PM of Canada simultaneously? It is then just a few obummanista steps to reunification of North America and with a few more obummanista tweeks Central America and South America could be brought into the fold. Tomorrow the world.

  • TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

    Beck believes in every part of the Constitution except when it comes to the eligibility requirements of the presidency.

    That part he disregards.

  • Anonymous

    The 14th Amendment says if you were born on U.S. soil then you are a citizen (It doesn’t matter where your parents were born). This  is the Amendment that made some 4 million slaves U.S. Citizens after the civil war.

  • bull57

    Obama can’t prove he is a citizen of any country!

  • Anonymous

    Using the same laws as the Founders, Frances Vattel’s Law of Nations and NOT the English Blackstone (remember we had FOUGHT the the British for FREEDOM), neither Obama nor Cruz are eligable to be President or Vice-President. Cruzs` father was NOT a citizen when he was born. Natural Born Citizen definition by Vattel is TWO citizen Parents…Please do as you say you do and FOLLOW THE FOUNDERS!

  • Isaiah Daniels

    All I can say to this is, the liberals continue to prove just how phony they really are. After all, one of the definitions of “phony” (in ANY dictionary) is a copy of an original. No new ideas coming out of D.C. anymore, just copies of other’s originals.

    nuf said……

  • Anonymous

    Ted’s father supported Castro.

    • 733336

       NO HE DIDN’T. That’s why he came here to get away from him.

  • DL Hancock

    I wouldnt have gave the leftwing nutjobs anything, PERIOD.

  • Anonymous

    Being a conservative means finding it possible to believe that your messiah was born to a virgin…
    but finding it impossible to believe that your president was born in America. 

    • greywolfrs

      So, ALL Conservatives are Christians now? S T F U, Dunce.

      • Anonymous

        No, not all conservatives are christians… but the ten percent who aren’t certainly know their place. 
        To the back of the bus you go. :)

        • Sam Fisher

          I sorry we are not liberals only you Dems put people in the back of the bus.

        • greywolfrs

          10%? You are off by a large margin, you are not smart enough to realize it though.

    • Sam Fisher

      Ladies and gentlemen liberal tolerance. 

  • greywolfrs

    Vote Rand Paul and the problem is solved…


  • Guest

    If he isn’t eligible, it should not be encouraged, only to find out after much money has been wasted on campaigning for him.

  • Anonymous

    @1loyalamerican74:disqus  “Are you considering the Muslim N Chief’s new Constitution????” As I said, the stupid who don’t want to ‘do their homework’ as Glenn always harps on, you seem to be stuck in that catigory. Search Vettal’s Law of nations; Section 112…How mush more easy can I make it for Your Laziness?

    • Anonymous

       Oh, directions, COPY AND PASTE: —>Vettals Law Of Nations; Section112 <—, then put that in the "search box….:::rolls eyes:::

  • Anonymous

    So Ted Cruz is an American citizen. We all are. Only those who were born on the soil of two citizen parents are NATURAL BORN Citizens though.

    I like Mr. Cruz, BUT, I will not allow the degradation of our Constitution by holding him up for president just because the Democrats have fooled us with Barry.

  • M. Fazio

    I am liking the Ted Cruz and Rick Perry Ticket for President (either man as President and Vice President).  We need these men in Oval Office.  Then we can see pass executive orders over turned.

  • Anonymous


  • Matthew D. Hudson

    NBC requires both parents be U.S. citizens, Mother and Father! 

  • Gordn Parx

    As a

  • Anonymous

    Way to go Senator Cruz, that is why I voted for you and will again.  Wished he was running for President – so far don’t like the ones who are thinking of running.  Still haven’t seen obama’s birth certificate, but we all know where he comes from and what he is.  Muslim!!

  • RevJules

    The left will do anything to destroy anyone they feel may threaten their hold on power in the future. This is only the beginning of their campaign to remove anyone who may decide to run against the candidate which the left will put up for taking over the white house in 2016. That they would use the “birther” thing just points out how desperate they really are, and that the lefts record since their ascendancy to power in 2007 is felt by them to not be in their favor for a continued reign.
    Cruz for President? From what I’ve seen so far from this gentleman from TX, I’m all for it. There are a few others I’d support, should they decide to run. I’d really like to see a coalition form and put together one really excellent candidate. A true conservative interested in restoring the will of the people and the rule of law to this nation.

  • Fonebone

    Let’s hope we soon enter the “after-birther” era.

  • Anonymous

    Sheesh, can everyone say hypocricy? Every one of you guys(birther or not) are fine with insisting President Obama show his birth certificate and then when things don’t go your way insist that Hawaii was not part of the United States back when the president was born. Or that the president was born in Kenya. Or anywhere else but in America. But you get bent out of shape about how Ted Cruz wanted to show his certificate. Now that everyone has found out he’s Canadian you’re insisting that he can run for president anyway. It’s nice to know that the party someone is in can make up your minds so easily for you. Actually, the Constitution has the rule about how a potenttial president has to have American parents(grandfather clause, huh?) because the framers were so anti-British that they needed to have a way to make sure someone from “the other side” of the Revolutionary War would not get in. Nowadays with America being such a mish-mosh of cultures and people living all kinds of places that rule is one of the ones that are so outdated it’s not funny. Anyone in this ever incresing global society should be able to run for office. Not only run but win.

  • Pat Draker

    People need to educate themselves and the media needs to educate the public – If one parent is an American citizen and their child is born outside the USA, that baby has dual citizenship. Good grief wise up!

  • Anonymous


    US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause
    5 requires anyone who is to be POTUS must be a “Natural Born Citizen of
    the United States”. “…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and
    excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” The New
    Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414 
    Of the 14th Amendment, which is a lesser stringency than the NBC
     requirement, which John Locke says in his Second Treatise of Government,
    Chapter 6 (Of Paternal Power), requiring a U.S. Citizen Father and a rearing of
    the first 21 years of life under the sole allegiance of the government of the
    father in the land to which he was born and the father is a citizen of.
     The 14th Amendment merely requires that the person born on U.S. soil is
    someone “OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER” (at the time of
    birth). Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102.  Since this stringency
    cannot be less than the NBC requirement for President, it must so apply of the
    Presidency as well.   Obama had a foreign national father and cannot prove
    in Court he was born in the USA, and the International Inbounds to Hawaii for
    August 1-10,1961 on microfilm documentation were removed (destroyed) by parties
    unknown. Obama stated he was born 3 months before the Bay of Pigs and is
    recognized diplomatically by Kenya as being Kenyan born in Media and by its
    government with a U.S. Ambassador present for a formal ceremony celebrating
    that fact. Obama’s attorneys can only claim Obama’s underage mother (1952
    Immigration Naturalization Act) makes him a U.S. Citizen, but the law says she
    needed to be 19 when Obama was born in circa Jan. 1961 in Kenya.   Cruz is making the same argument, that his
    mother makes him “a citizen”: NOT a Natural Born Citizen, but “a
    citizen” which is what Obama claims as a Usurper of the Presidency.

    The N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, col.
    3,4, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can
    carry that great name back into the White House.” … his birth on August 17,
    1914, was at Campobello Island, in New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt
    Canadian summer estate. Since F.D.R Jr was NOT eligible with 2 U.S. Natural
    Born Citizen parents, and born in Canada, why should we exempt Cruz because
    Obama is currently illegal to be POTUS also?,65872.0.html

    The Constitution as the Supreme Law applies to
    all of us equally.  To look the other way
    because Obama is black, and Cruz and Rubio are Latino, is to rob the right of
    someone who is Constitutionally qualified to have won, regardless of ethnicity,
    it is a Constitutional Right (I contend) that anyone who runs for President
    should not have to compete against an illegal candidate in his or her party,
    let alone the national election.  It is a
    matter of LAW, which Mr. Beck and his brown-nosing yes men just cannot compete
    in legal arguments with, so they join the Left in protecting the Lawless even
    as Obama now calls Al Qaeda his open allies and we are supposed to not speak up
    and say it is wrong because Glenn might lose some sleep or something?  Poor baby. 

  • Anonymous

    Couldn’t/wouldn’t vet B.O. but bless their lil’ ole hearts—the LSM doesn’t see a conservative
    that can’t be hounded—into the ground, if they can get by with it.

  • Anonymous

    Well, if America keeps an moslem Kenyan obumhole for a president who is nothing but a moslem brotherhood toilet bowl full of shit, so what about Cruz?  At least he’s admitted it and brought it out in the open.  What has the current moslem cunt in chief done.  Nothing.

  • Anonymous

    Finally Obama can come out and say he is from Kenya as it apparently doesn’t matter which country you were born in so long as one parent is American. All hail our great Kenyan, and completely legal, President. 

  • wilbert Robichaud
  • Anonymous

    whoever is started the birther roomer better start to work on HusseinObama’s Deportation because that means HusseinObama has no right to be presidentCelebrity-in-Chief because His Father Is Not American he’s African. husseinObama is also an anti-America-Islam-Terrorist!

  • chenchen


  • Anonymous

    He was born in Canada. Not a natural born citizen, period. We can’t have it both ways. The issue with Obama was that it thought he was born in Kenya and if true he was disqualified to run for the Presidency. No one said it didn’t matter where he was born because his mother was an American citizen, liberals weren’t even making that argument. Sorry Cruz, be the best Senator you can be.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, again. What, did you think we’d ignore the Constitution just because we like this one?

  • Anonymous

     Not born here – not a citizen

  • CowboyUpAmerica

    Cruz was not born an American Citizen….let alone a Natural Born Citizen…

    His mother failed to register his birth as a citizen of the United States with the American Embassy in Canada…

    Burned the midnight oil doing research about dual citizenship after having a flash of memory the United States did not recognize dual citizenship in 1970, the year Ted Cruz was born a Canadian Citizen…

    In 1970 his mother had a limited time to go to the US Embassy to register his birth as an American…..and evidently never did that as Cruz just denounced his Canadian Citizenship last year…

    He of all people knew his entry into the race was going to cause confusion…

    The dual citizenship laws began to change under the Carter Administration 1976-80…

    In 1986 additional changes were made, but long after Cruz was born a Canadian…

    Ted Cruz’s father and mother became naturalized Canadian citizens while in Canada before Ted was born and Ted’s father didn’t give up his Canadian citizenship here in America until 2005…Ted Cruz gave up his Canadian Citizenship last May, 2014…

  • Thomas Flaherty

    It’s all a big joke, right Glenn? Taking your playbook from Obama. Don’t
    consider the facts! Ridicule the opposition! WE CONSTITUTIONALISTS WILL
    Your “departure” from the Republicans is fake, isn’t it? So you can come back around and support the nominee regardless, “for the sake of the country,” and lead all the disgusted, disgruntled, disrespected Conservative base back “home.”

  • Constitution101

    Calling opponents of unqualified candidates “birthers” is a very clever way to sneak these sort of candidates in without objection. Who wants to be labeled the dreaded “birther” name? How ironic it is that there is little hidden to Cruz’s candidacy except in the willful ignoring of Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” Vattel’s book was the top international law book the Founder’s read. Rob Natelson said it twice in his book, “The Original Constitution.” Challenge: read the Law of Nations from cover to cover.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.