Et Tu, RedState?

from redstate.com: 'Could Elizabeth Warren Face Ted Cruz in 2016?' - Dan McLaughlin - July 18;  posted July 21

..
celador2 sugarmomma • 9 hours ago 

The renounce process was complete May 14, I think. He is no longer a Canadian citizen in name, which is all he ever was. Furthermore in order to show he would not he stateless if he renounced he had to provide his mother's BC which made him a US citizen under Canadian law. He seems to have complied with Canadian provisions to demonstrate he would not be stateless and therefore is a US citizen. Canada may have denied the request unless the applicant showed he'd not be stateless as a result is what I read at Salon a year or more ago. Note Salon is hostile to Cruz. The site featured a Canadian - American analysis about the renounce Canadian citizen- dual process. It was a one day story in US news a few months ago. No big deal.

3

Reply

kibitzer celador2 • 6 minutes ago  (July 21)

celador2, you seem legitimate, unlike the obot equivalents (at the least) on this thread. So let me explain the facts.

"Renounce" processes are not the matter. The circumstances of one's birth are the matter. And Ted Cruz is not a 'natural born' American citizen by birth circumstances. He is not a child born on the soil of two U.S. citizen parents.  [N.B. His father, a citizen of Cuba, was not a naturalized American citizen at the time of Ted's birth.  Thus, Ted is a dual citizen, regardless of where he was born.]

Consider. The whole POINT of the constitutional Framers putting that specific eligibility requirement in the constitutional contract for that office - and that particular office ONLY, let it be reminded (since extended logically to the office of the VP) - was to make sure (at least as sure as THEY could make it, in their time) that a candidate for that office - who would as well, if elected, become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - did not have any DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And PARTICULARLY like a dual citizen. Like Obama.

Which is why Obama is a Usurper, and needs to be treated as such. NOT excused for trashing the Constitution, as he has done - by his very presence in the Oval Office, let alone his actions subsequent to that crime - the way that the Republican Party has done, in looking the other way about his candidacy.

Two points. 1) Two wrongs don't make a right. 2) Why would the Repub Party honchos engage in this trashing of the Constitution (and thus, of the rule of law in the country)? Obvious answer: Because they did a quid pro quo deal w/their Demo Party counterparts: 'We won't say anything about your candidate if you won't say anything about any subsequent candidate of ours, on this issue.' Reason? Because both parties found it too difficult to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on the issue. (Between them they tried a total of 8 times, between 2003 and 2008, to get such an amendment going, and failed every time even to get it out of committee.)

This issue needs to be settled, and now. Before the nation descends even further into the murky dissolution of the rule of law. Which means, living rather by the rule of men. And that means war.

We may have it anyway. Because of two things. 1) Obama's illegality (and the war that the Marxists, & other statists, are waging on the nation already, thereby). And 2) The Republican Party's failure to do its job, in a two-party system, of being 'the honorable opposition' party; in such a terrible betrayal of the nation's fundamental principles, of Liberty under Justice, that has occurred on our watch.

We have a job to do. And it is NOT to compound the problem. It is to correct it.

Smear words to the contrary notwithstanding.

--
[N.B. 1) The word is 'honorable,' ladles and gentlemen of the Republican Party.
     Not 'dishonorable'.
     ('Dear Republican Party: You were not a party to the constitutional contract.  Where do you think you get your power to amend it?,  let alone unilaterally??
     'I'm waiting.
     'Sincerely,
     'An American Citizen.')
     2) To clarify my comment about "smear words": Some patrollers of these RedState threads were using words like 'racist' against those who questioned Cruz's NBC status.  Unforgivable.  And straight out of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' bible.
     Whether socialist radical.  Or fascist.]

--

rcsjr2 • 3 hours ago

The thought of Ted is intriguing, way too early to speculate but, the notion of restoring constitutional integrity in the executive branch is a breath of very fresh air. The nation, still suffering economic malaise, over-regulation, domestic and foreign ineptitude, would not stand the strain of another progressive experiment if God forbid Elizabeth Warren were to rise to the top.

1

•

Reply

kibitzer rcsjr2 • a few seconds ago  (July 21)

"Restoring constitutional integrity in the executive branch" would mean ousting Obama as the Usurper he is - and NOT compounding the error by putting up a non-'natural born' citizen for the office.

Read my comment below. And help restore that integrity that you invoke.

--

P.S. Some channeled advice for today:

     "You are the ones who are aware and must exercise your power by calling on the Angels for assistance and directing them to the areas where they are needed…"
     'Dear Angels:
     'You are needed in America, for its citizenry to restore it to its core roots, and thus correct error.  Before we can even think of transcending that   blueprint, and building a firmer edifice on it.  Firm enough from which to reach to the heavens.'

     ("The bottom line is how much do you love?"  
      I love my country.  And I want it back…)

     ("Become the enlightened being that can rise above any situation and see a more loving perspective."
      Damn.  Tough call……
      But then, nobody promised us a rose garden.
      At least, not on this current level…)