I pointed out two weeks ago that the media are on a campaign to ensure Sen. Ted Cruz never gets a chance to run for president. Why? Because, they claim or infer, he’s ineligible under the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born citizen.”
It’s amazing given the media’s ridicule of those of us who posed the question and did six years of investigative work to try to determine Barack Obama’s eligibility – a question that has still not been answered, by the way, or even debated rationally on the facts we now know.
It grows more obvious every day – this is what we can expect as long as a Cruz candidacy remains even a possibility.
This is precisely why it was so important to pay attention to the precedent Obama set by refusing to release his birth certificate for two years and then releasing one that was labeled fraudulent by the only law enforcement investigators who have examined it, as well as dozens of document experts.
Reaction to my “Meet the new birthers” column has been, well, predictable and contentious.
Check out the latest from the Raw Story – which falls right in line with the so-called “mainstream media” in their strange fantasies about the issues surrounding Obama’s eligibility and the new standard Cruz is supposed to meet.
“One of the leading ‘birther’ conspiracy theorists says he’s totally fine with Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, running for president,” it read. (Note the ad hominem characterization.)
“WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah published a column Thursday complaining that the media had never bothered to uncover evidence to support his theory that President Barack Obama was born abroad, despite proof that he wasn’t, so he’s decided to disregard that Cruz is, in fact, foreign-born,” it continued.
Now I have seen dozens of blog postings and “news stories” about my commentary, and they all pretty much say the same thing – suggesting or outright stating that I peddled a theory that Obama was born abroad. This is patently untrue.
In the hundreds of thousands of words I have written and spoken on this subject, I have never theorized Obama was born abroad.
So what was my beef?
One problem has always been, and remains today, that we don’t know where he was born because he has never released an unchallenged birth certificate.
A second problem remains that even if the birth certificate is accurate and authentic, it still leaves open the question of his “natural born citizen” status because it states his father was a Kenyan citizen, unable to confer “natural born citizen” status on his son.
A third problem is that his listed mother was unable to confer that status on her son because she was a minor – too young. She hadn’t lived as a citizen in the country long enough. She later left for Indonesia and took her son with her to Indonesia where he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen.
So the question remains, even without an uncontested birth certificate, how did Obama become a “natural born citizen”?
But there are even more unanswered questions about Obama:
- Did he give up his status as an American citizen when he moved to Indonesia with his family? The U.S. government gave his mother specific instructions about how to protect her son’s basic citizenship while living in Indonesia. She was advised to homeschool him rather than enroll him in an Indonesian school. Did she listen? No.
- Did Obama return and enroll in college as a “foreign student,” as many suspect? We don’t know. He has never released any college records.
- But, most importantly, without an uncontested, clean, verified birth certificate, we not only don’t know where he was born but we don’t even know for certain who his parents were – and that is the key question when it comes to “natural born citizen” status.
There’s a reason for Obama’s secretiveness. That’s the basis for the questions. To say he has been less than forthcoming about his life would be an understatement of epic proportions. At one time in his life, when there was seemingly an advantage to say it, Obama claimed to have been born in Kenya. The publicity machine behind his first book proclaimed it proudly and never corrected it. Because the press has shown no interest in vetting him, he got away with it all – even while proclaiming his intent to lead the “most transparent administration in history.”
“Mr. Transparency” has always been “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,” to paraphrase one of his least favorite people, Winston Churchill.
We don’t know much more about him today than we did in 2008 – except that he has turned out to be our worst nightmare as we had suspected all along.
But, I digress. I really don’t want to talk about Obama’s eligibility any more. Few wanted to listen to me when I led the investigations into his candidacy, his first term in office and his second term. “Conservatives” said it didn’t matter. Republicans said they were afraid to be called a “racist” for bringing it up. His first opponent had his own hands full with eligibility questions Obama never had to address by the press or by government. Democrats couldn’t be expected to ask questions about one of their own. And neither could the press – save WND.
I’m actually being called a “hypocrite” today for saying I don’t have any concerns about Ted Cruz’s eligibility. Here’s why I don’t: The man has been forthcoming and released his birth certificate – even before his candidacy. It’s a Canadian birth certificate, as we all expected. It lists his parents – one a Cuban citizen who later became a U.S. citizen and the other an American citizen who conferred U.S. citizenship on her son. Cruz is in the process of renouncing his Canadian citizenship. He loves and reveres the U.S. Constitution as much as his Cuban-born father does. This is different than, say, Sen. Marco Rubio. Neither of his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born – neither of them able to confer on their son what the founders deemed “natural born citizen” status. The fact that he was born in the U.S. is of lesser, if any, significance.
Cruz has released all his papers without being asked – even before seeking the presidency. If someone else wants to make the case that he is not eligible, I’ll listen skeptically and respectfully.
Some of the attacks on my column have even suggested I “endorsed” Cruz for president. Listen, I like the guy, but he’s not even running yet. I like many potential candidates. It will be some time before I endorse anyone. To my mind, I’m satisfied. I do not see any potential for divided loyalties for Ted Cruz, which was the founders’ principle reason for including the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution. If he ran against Hillary Clinton, I’d enthusiastically support him. He’s much more of an American than Hillary could ever be.
But I’m not here to defend Ted Cruz’s eligibility. I’m here to say that America needs one standard of eligibility – not one for Republicans and another for Democrats, not one for conservatives and another for liberals, not one for people we like and another for people we don’t like.
You want to talk about hypocrites? Who are the hypocrites on this issue?
John McCain got grilled by the New York Times, CNN and all the “mainstream media” about his eligibility questions.
Obama not only didn’t get asked for any proof, the media helped him cover it up by attacking the messengers who did.
The same thing is happening predictably now with Ted Cruz.
You know why they are after him. It’s not because he intends to circumvent the Constitution. It’s because he intends to uphold it, support it, defend it, honor it – the same way he has all his life.
Note: In this 20011 video, Joseph Farah is interviewed by Cenk Uygur, who was later fired by MSNBC, went to Current TV and now works for al-Jazeera:
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.