Moonie Times Invents Liberal Birthers


The Washington Moonie Times editorial board seems to think that liberals have suddenly become birthers when it comes to Ted Cruz. This is both inaccurate and hypocritical, since they themselves have been on the birther bandwagon from the start.

Agunfighter always shoots at the man he fears most. So the guns of the left have been aimed at Ted Cruz, the charismatic senator from Texas who’s looking at the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Many liberals who not so long ago derided anyone who questioned President Obama’s American birth as a “birther” are asking similar questions now about Mr. Cruz’s eligibility to hold the nation’s highest office. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada but was an American citizen at birth because his mother is an American citizen, born in Delaware. The Constitution stipulates that a president must be “a natural born citizen,” without defining the term.

They don’t name any liberals who are questioning Cruz’s eligibility. I don’t know of any. I know many who are making the argument that by the same reasoning the birthers used to dismiss Obama’s eligibility, Cruz would not be eligible. But even if there were liberals who were claiming Cruz isn’t eligible because he was born in another country, there is no hypocrisy there because of one crucial difference: Obama actually was born in the United States. Cruz wasn’t.

I don’t think that matters one bit in either case. If you are born to American parents, you are an American citizen by birth. It doesn’t matter where you were born. Is anyone seriously going to argue that if an American couple goes on vacation while the women is pregnant and she goes into labor and delivers in another country that the child is not a natural-born citizen? That’s ridiculous. But ridiculous is the right’s peculiar specialty.

The hypocrisy here is on the part of the Moonie Times, which was arguing for years that if Obama was not born in the United States, he’s not a natural-born citizen. So were they lying then out of political convenience in order to hurt their political enemies? Or are they lying now out of political convenience in order to help their political allies?

Comments

  1. says

    Did I not predict that Farah’s blithering about Cruz was intended to get liberals to act as silly as Republicans? This article just confirms it.

  2. Abby Normal says

    So were they lying then… Or are they lying now?

    Ooh, ooh, Mr. Carter, Mr. Carter! I know this one, it’s both!

  3. John Pieret says

    So were they lying then out of political convenience in order to hurt their political enemies? Or are they lying now out of political convenience in order to help their political allies?

    Ed, Ed … you keep giving us these dichotomies as if they are mutually exclusive. They were lying then about not being a natural born citizen if not born in the US and they’re lying now when they say liberals are being birthers instead of merely being amused at how the wingnuts have hoist themselves on their own petards.

  4. skinnercitycyclist says

    nkrishna:

    I stopped reading at “charismatic.” Ted Cruz is about as charismatic as a wet sock.

    You forget, this is the demographic that insists liberals hate Sarah Palin because she is sexy…

  5. says

    @5 skinnercitycyclist:

    You’re right. I find Cruz as charismatic as a wet sock, but I’m a librul so it must be because he’s the messiah. (Insert Life Of Brian quote here.)

  6. Alverant says

    “if an American couple goes on vacation while the women is pregnant and she goes into labor and delivers in another country that the child is not a natural-born citizen”
    The anti-immigrant crowd argues that if a couple who are here illegally and have a child in the USA then the child should not be considered a US citizen. It sounds like you’re agreeing with them because if a baby born to parents of country A in country B, then the baby is a natural citizen of country A period and has no legal rights as a citizen of country B.

  7. Mike Morris says

    Looks like our our favorite birther, Orly Taitz is consistent in her ignorance. She feels Cruz may have a problem but is happy that he has gotten out in front of the issue by releasing his birth certificate early. She still wants him to go before a ‘high ranking’ judge to get a ruling on his natural born-ness.

    With Orly, at least you can count on consistent stupid. No hope of any coherent though escaping that black hole of a brain.

  8. eric says

    @2: Uh? I don’t see how the article confirms that liberals are acting as silly as Republicans (technically, birthers). Ed’s point is that the article is lying; liberals are not in fact claiming Cruz is ineligible.

  9. dingojack says

    Alverant – Allow me to re-iterate:

    “…. it’s all rather simple. One is a citizen of a country* if:
    A) At least one of one’s parents is a citizen of that country (by blood)
    AND/OR
    B) One is born in the territory claimed by that country (including diplomatic missions, sea & air going vessels etc.). (by soil,)….”

    Do you need me to repeat that M-O-R-E S-L-O-W-L-Y?!?

    Dingo

  10. Chiroptera says

    Of course he’s also wrong on another level as well.

    In the case of Obama, the argument against the birthers was mainly that their basic premise was incorrect: Obama was born in Hawaii which was a state at the time, and so there is absolutely no question whatsoever, not even any of the so-called “gray areas” (which aren’t even gray when you examine them) that he is a natural born citizen.

    Ted Cruz was born on foreign soil. Although he is definitely eligible for the Presidency, the laws that make him a natural born citizen are different than the laws that make Obama a natural born citizen. (In Obama’s case, the Constitution itself leaves no doubt about his citizenship; in the case of Cruz, it is regular statutory law, which, which makes him a citizen.)

  11. Alverant says

    Dingo, go back and read my comment slowly, maybe several times, before venturing your own opinion.

  12. says

    The anti-immigrant crowd argues that if a couple who are here illegally and have a child in the USA then the child should not be considered a US citizen. It sounds like you’re agreeing with them because if a baby born to parents of country A in country B, then the baby is a natural citizen of country A period and has no legal rights as a citizen of country B.

    There is this thing called dual-citizenship. Lots of children are considered citizens of both their mothers’ and fathers’ countries. A baby born in the US is automatically granted US citizenship, but this does not preclude also having citizenship in whatever country her birth parents are from. Technically a dual citizen is supposed to choose one or the other by age 18, but it’s increasingly tolerated even after that age.

    Most other countries do not grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within their boundaries, but if they were to do so, it would not conflict with American law (including the silly “natural born citizen” requirement), and a baby born to American parents while on vacation would simply be a dual citizen.

  13. dingojack says

    Alverant – YOU’RE accusing ME of having reading comprehension difficulties?
    Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
    Here is Ed’s actual take on the situation:
    If you are born to American parents, you are an American citizen by birth. It doesn’t matter where you were born. Is anyone seriously going to argue that if an American couple goes on vacation while the women is pregnant and she goes into labor and delivers in another country that the child is not a natural-born citizen? That’s ridiculous.
    Perhaps you need to take your own advice*.
    Dingo
    ——–
    * and while you’re at it., quit with the piss-poor attempts at quote-mining

  14. says

    Look, Obama was born in Hawaii. That’s, like, all the way over in Africa. So he’s not eligible. Cruz was born in Canada. That’s barely even foreign. And also he’s a Republican. So he’s fine.

  15. dean says

    Cruz was born in Canada. That’s barely even foreign.

    Modus, once again you make a comment that qualifies as “ripped from the news”. :)

    Can it be satire if people say it in seriousness?

    In 2008, Republican voter Christina Katok of Walden said she believed Obama was ineligible for the job because he was born in Kenya and therefore wasn’t a “natural born” American, even though there is ample proof to the contrary. But she feels that Ted Cruz is eligible because “Canada is not really foreign soil.”

  16. says

    dean, reality and satire have combined, forming Realitire. Satirity?
     
    In any even, we’re through the looking glass here, people. Things are going to get deeply weird.

  17. says

    Alverant wrote:

    The anti-immigrant crowd argues that if a couple who are here illegally and have a child in the USA then the child should not be considered a US citizen. It sounds like you’re agreeing with them because if a baby born to parents of country A in country B, then the baby is a natural citizen of country A period and has no legal rights as a citizen of country B.

    No, not at all. A child born to an American citizen while they are overseas is an American citizen by birth. So is a child born in the United States to someone who is not a citizen. The 14th Amendment controls the second question:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    This isn’t about “country A” or “country B,” it’s about what American law says.

  18. felidae says

    Aw, come on, can’t we just have a little fun with Calgary Ted? After all, he is only one for three in the citizenship test when Obama went 2 out of three

  19. says

    As it happens, I’m in the same boat as Cruz — born on foreign soil, with one parent an American citizen at the time, who made sure I was registered as an American citizen from birth. So I’m actually kind of interested in watching this play out. Not that I anticipate running for President, let alone winning.

  20. sezme says

    My granddaughter was born in the USA of an American mother and British father (here on a green card). She carries an American passport. My grandson, from the exact same parents, carries a British passport and is a dual citizen.

  21. Mark Chandler says

    When I was in the Army living in Germany in the 80s, this was a discussion in Stars and Stripes. The JAG consensus was that even a child born of military parents who was born in a civilian hospital would not be able to be president. What is the current thought?

  22. Infophile says

    @24 Mark Chandler: While no US President has been born outside of the US to my knowledge, there are examples of people born outside the US who’ve run for President: George Romney in 1968 (born in Mexico, but never a Mexican citizen), Lowell Weicker in 1980 (born in France), and most notably John McCain in 2008. McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone in in in 1936, and legislation wasn’t passed until 11 months after his birth that made the area he was born in officially US territory (though it did do so retroactively). The key point to all of these cases is that it was never resolved in court that any of them would be eligible – cases were dismissed for (wait for it) lack of standing. There is no legal precedent on whether or not someone born outside the US to US parents is eligible to run for President, though the predominant opinion among constitutional scholars is that they would be.

    Relating to Ted Cruz, he’ll almost certainly be allowed to run if he chooses to do so. If anyone brings a case (which does have a modicum of merit, given that the requirements for being natural-born are not firmly established in law or case law), it’ll most likely be dismissed for lack of standing, and he’ll get to run.

Leave a Reply