Thursday, February 11, 2016



“The current regional Catholic-Muslim dialogues are the Mid-Atlantic (partnering with the Islamic Circle of North America), Midwest (partnering with the Islamic Society of North America) and West Coast (partnering with the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California and the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County). Each is co-chaired by a bishop and a Muslim leader from the corresponding regional organization. These dialogues will continue to meet and will work collaboratively with the members of the new national dialogue.”
The Islamic Circle of North America: “Terrorism analyst Steven Emerson claims that ICNA has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological forebear of all radical Islamic movements — including Hamas and al-Qaeda. Documents show that Hamas officials have participated in previous ICNA events. ‘The ICNA’s hatred of the Jews is so fierce,’ writes Emerson, ‘that it taunted them with a repetition of what Hitler did to them.’ In his book American Jihad, Emerson expounds: ‘The ICNA openly supports militant Islamic fundamentalist organizations, praises terror attacks, issues incendiary attacks on western values and policies, and supports the imposition of Sharia [Islamic law].’ ICNA was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document — titled ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America‘ — as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 like minded ‘organizations of our friends’ that shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These ‘friends’ were identified by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims ‘that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.'”
The Islamic Society of North America: “ISNA leaders view Islam as being superior to all other faiths and destined to replace them. Taha J. Alwani, a leading official of the Fiqh Council of North America, which is run under ISNA, writes: ‘In considering the earth as an arena for Islam, Allah has promised its inheritance to His righteous people, and He has promised that Islam will prevail over other religions.’…In July 2008, ISNA’s lawyers conceded that their organization, through its affiliate NAIT, had given financial support to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. Their defense was that documentary evidence of those ties dated back to the late 1980s and early 1990s, before the U.S. government had officially designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.”
What do you think is the goal of such groups in engaging in “dialogue” with Catholic bishops? The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 2014 statement on “dialogue” quotes the 2007 document sent to the Pope and other Christian leaders, A Common Word Between Us and You. It is likely that not a single one of the bishops was ever curious about where the phrase “a common word between us and you comes from beyond the Qur’an citation provided in that document’s epigraph. If they had looked it up in the Qur’an, they would have found that the full passage is not a call for mutual understanding and mutual respect; rather, it is an exhortation to Christians to convert to Islam: “Say: ‘People of the Book! Come now to a word common between us and you, that we serve none but Allah, and that we associate no others with Him, and do not some of us take others as Lords, apart from Allah.’ And if they turn their backs, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims’” (3:64). Since Muslims consider the Christian confession of the divinity of Christ to be an unacceptable association of a partner with God, this verse is saying that the “common word” that Muslims and the People of the Book should agree on is that Christians should discard one of the central tenets of their faith and essentially become Muslims.
For groups such as ICNA and ISNA, that is almost certainly what the “dialogue” is all about, along with compelling Catholic leaders to remain silent about Muslim persecution of Christians, as when Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, suppressed a planned talk at a Catholic conference on that persecution, explaining: “Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.” Evil works under the cover of darkness, and McManus, drunk on “dialogue,” was happy to supply that cover.
But the typical modern Catholic bishop, coddled, cosseted, regal, arrogant, authoritarian, ignorant, self-infatuated, and utterly devoid of charity, will never deign to acknowledge any of this. They are blind guides.
Blase Cupich
“US Bishops Launch National Catholic-Muslim Dialogue,” Zenit, February 9, 2016:
Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Chicago will serve as the first Catholic co-chair of a new National Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, sponsored by the Committee on Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Archbishop Cupich’s tenure as dialogue co-chair will begin January 1, 2017.
The bishops’ ecumenical and inter-religious committee has co-sponsored three regional Catholic-Muslim dialogues for over two decades. Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski of Springfield, Massachusetts, chair of the committee, said the time is right to begin a national dialogue.
“As the national conversation around Islam grows increasingly fraught, coarse and driven by fear and often willful misinformation, the Catholic Church must help to model real dialogue and good will,” said Bishop Rozanski. “Our current dialogues have advanced the goals of greater understanding, mutual esteem and collaboration between Muslims and Catholics, and the members have established lasting ties of friendship and a deep sense of trust. I am grateful to Archbishop Cupich for agreeing to represent our Conference in this crucial conversation.”
How grand: they’ve established lasting ties of friendship and a deep sense of trust. How many Christians have they saved from Muslim persecution? How many churches have they prevented from being destroyed by Islamic jihadis?
The current regional Catholic-Muslim dialogues are the Mid-Atlantic (partnering with the Islamic Circle of North America), Midwest (partnering with the Islamic Society of North America) and West Coast (partnering with the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California and the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County). Each is co-chaired by a bishop and a Muslim leader from the corresponding regional organization. These dialogues will continue to meet and will work collaboratively with the members of the new national dialogue….


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A memo intended for San Diego city employees attempted to bar them from saying the words “Founding Fathers” because of the “gender bias” the term allegedly implies.
Entitled, “Visual and Correspondence Style Guidelines,” the memo sought to implement speech restrictions banning employees from uttering everyday terms like “man made” and “mankind” on the basis that such terms exhibit “non-inclusive language.”
“Most alarmingly,” reads a press release from the Pacific Justice Institute, “is the guidelines directive, on page 76, that City employees should refrain from mentioning those to whom owe our most fundamental freedoms, the Founding Fathers.”
The legal organization has offered free help for any city employee that is reprimanded for referring to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or any of the men that shaped the nation’s history.
“The manual’s inane attempt to recast the fathers as simply the ‘Founders’ reaches a level of political correctness, censorship and insensitivity towards time-honored American values that is indefensible,” the press release reads.
Evidently San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer was unaware of the manual’s “gender inclusive” efforts until recently.
In a tweet sent today, he stated he had already ordered the manual removed from city use, citing it as an example of how political correctness has gone wild.
“Suggesting that our Founding Fathers should be referred to as ‘Founders’ is political correctness run-amuck. We are proud of our nation’s history and there is nothing wrong with referring to the Founding Fathers,” Faulconer said.
“At my direction this was removed yesterday from the City’s correspondence manual. The manual will be reviewed for other misguided examples that defy common sense and changes will be made accordingly.”
Indeed, the case is illustrative of how political correctness can grow so out of proportion that it begins to directly infringe on civil liberties.
Cities such as Seattle have similarly moved to ban words like “citizen” and “brown bag” on the basis that such words are offensive. In Ontario, Canada, France and other places, the words “mother” and “father” have even been removed from government forms in the name of inclusiveness.


Enviro Extremists Call for Shooting Ranchers’ Cattle
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Intentionally shooting someone else’s livestock is a crime — a felony. Doing it to make a political statement and intimidate the owners might be considered terrorism. That’s what a Facebook page for the “Public Lands Hunt Club” is advocating, and that is causing concern and anger among ranchers and farmers in the western states. Is the Facebook page merely a spoof, as some observers claim, or is it agitprop aimed at fomenting the criminal acts it glibly professes to support?
The website logo features a photo (shown) of a Black Angus cow facing the camera, with the cross hairs of a rifle scope, in red, planted directly on the cow’s head. The site also features many photos of dead cattle that the Public Lands Hunt Club (PLHC) claims — or implies — are the result of their handiwork.
The PLHC has posted these club “rules”:
Cattle that are legally grazing on our public lands are to be left alone. PLHC members are to only target cattle owned by ranchers who have publicly renounced their grazing contracts designed to provide a minimum of environmental protections. Many of these ranchers are publicly known due to their actions and associations with the Bundy Family of Nevada. Furthermore, all cattle found in areas near or surrounding militia occupied lands are fair game. Ranchers abiding by their contracts and showing good land stewardship practices are off limits to PLHC member activities.
Shoot straight. Be safe. Have fun. ©2016 PLHC
The photos of dead cattle shown on the PLHC may simply be Photo-shopped pictures taken off the Internet or agriculture magazines. The Capital Press, an agriculture news website, reported that the Oregon State Police have “no information of any cows illegally killed” or anything related to the PLHC FB page, according to an e-mail response from OSP spokesman Lt. Bill Fugate. According to the same Capital Press report, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association is monitoring the page, but did not report any incidents. The New American was unable to document any specific cattle-killing incidents linked to the photos or claims of the PLHC.
Multiple posters on the PLHC webpage have expressed their outrage over the group’s support for criminal activity, but the PLHC’s typical response is to accuse them of being “welfare ranchers” and to tell them to “stop whining.”
“Welfare ranchers” has become a common meme among environmental militants, as has referring to cattle as an “invasive species.”
The PLHC Facebook timeline for January 29, 2016 says: “Official cattle count is now 16. Shoot straight. Be safe. Have fun.” Directly below that posting is one from a rancher (presumably) listed as “Wes Clegg,”who irately states: “You think this is funny they have been shooting my cows and horses and when I catch you guys there will be no law you’ll be six feet under you people don’t get it."
PLHC responds to Clegg: “If you are complying with your grazing permits you have nothing to fear so stop your whining.” By February 1 the PLHC claimed that its cattle body count was up to 23.
Anti-Mormon, anti-beef, anti-rancher, pro-vegan, pro-wolf
It might appear from the PLHC “rules” and some of the comments listed above that the PLHC opposes only those ranchers who graze cattle on the so-called “public lands,” but who refuse to “cooperate” with the federal agencies that manage those lands. However, the PLHC’s Facebook URL link would seem to advocate actually shooting not only the cattle of “welfare ranchers,” but ranchers themselves.
It is also apparent from numerous postings in the PLHC Facebook page, as well as the many extremist environmental groups and websites they link to, that PLHC views all ranching — whether on public or private lands — as pernicious and detrimental to Mother Earth. PETA, Sierra Club, Earth First!, Wild Earth Guardians, One Green Planet, and Natural Resources Defense Council are but a few of the far-left enviro groups that post to PLHC (and/or that PLHC frequently links to). Photos and quotations of the late Edward Abbey, the patron saint of radical “deep ecology,” “ecotage,” and “monkey wrenching” (enviro terrorism and sabotage), are liberally sprinkled throughout the PLHC FB page, including quotes denouncing ranchers, ranching, and cattle. Cattle ranching is repeatedly cited as being inimical to wolves and other "threatened" and "endangered" flora and fauna.
The Arizona Daily Independent reported that the PLHC’s vitriol “is especially harsh for those of the Mormon faith,” pointing specifically to a comment by a PLHC administrator to a posting by a critic: “Barbara would you please try again in English? We don’t speak inbred Mormon retard here.” The site is littered with many other anti-Mormon and anti-Christian comments.
How has Facebook reacted to the PLHC’s incivility, bigotry, and advocacy of criminal intolerance toward ranchers and their livestock? According to the Daily Independent, Facebook has responded to complaints and requests to take down the PLHC page with the following comment:
Thank you for taking time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the Page you reported for harassment and found it doesn’t violate our Community Standards. Thanks, The Facebook Team.
Related articles:


FROM: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Uploaded on Feb 9, 2016
Free speech is no longer free. Emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “micro-aggressions,” the government is whittling away at free speech, confining it to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalizing it when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shaming it when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzling it when it appears dangerous. In this episode of On Target, John W. Whitehead identifies the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016


Obama Budget Would Add Another $9.3 Trillion to the Debt

Debt would reach $27.4 trillion in 10 years
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

President Barack Obama presented a budget to Congress on Tuesday that if enacted would add nearly $10 trillion to the national debt, according to the White House’s projections.
The president’s final budget, widely considered to be dead on arrival due to the Republican-controlled Congress, projects the nation would face a $27.4 trillion debt in 2026.
The budget set the actual total debt for 2015 at $18.1 trillion, projecting an increase of $9.3 trillion. When President Obama took office the debt stood at $10.6 trillion.
The White House budget for fiscal year 2017 includes old and new items of the president’s agenda, including the “Fair Share Tax” on the rich, known as the “Buffett Rule,” and a new tax on oil that would increase taxes by $319 billion over 10 years.
The $4.1 trillion budget also includes raising the minimum wage, “free community college” for two years, and the hiring of 200 new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives special agents to “reduce gun violence.”
Obama again included his “preschool for all” initiative, which would cost $17.3 billion between 2017 and 2021, and total $66 billion over 10 years.
The budget claims it will “end family homelessness” at a cost of $1.2 billion by 2022.
A move to “standardize the definition for American Indians and Alaska Natives” used in Obamacare would cost $30 million in 2017.
Providing “full coverage of preventive health and tobacco cessation services” in Medicaid would cost $99 million in 2017 and $450 million by 2021.
Another budget item called “Enact RESPECT: Best Job in the World” would cost $50 million in 2017.
The budget also calls for a $12 billion increase in spending to have the government feed kids year-round.
“The Budget invests $12 billion over 10 years to create a permanent Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children program that would provide all families with children eligible for free and reduced-price school meals access to supplemental food benefits during the summer months,” the Office of Management and Budget said.
Obama’s proposal includes a heavy dose of funding related to climate change, including $1.3 billion to “advance the goals of the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI).”
“The challenge of climate change will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other,” Obama wrote in the introduction to his budget.
The funding includes $750 million for the “Green Climate Fund” to fight climate change in third-world countries. Taxpayer funding would also go towards implementing the president’s climate change plan for the United Nations summit in Paris last year.
The budget would also double spending on “clean energy research” from $6.4 billion in 2016 to $12.8 billion in 2021.
Funding for the Department of Transportation’s TIGER grants, many of which go to more bike paths, streetcar projects, and solar-paneled rest stops, would also nearly double.
The budget also increases taxes, with the creation of numerous new fees.
Aside from the “oil fee” of $10.25 per barrel, the budget would also impose a “financial fee” for large American firms.
“The Budget would also impose a new fee on large, highly-leveraged financial institutions,” the administration said. “Specifically, the Budget would raise $111 billion over 10 years by imposing a seven basis point fee on the liabilities of large U.S. financial firms—the roughly 100 firms with assets over $50 billion.”
Obama’s budget also introduces a Food Safety and Inspection Service fee; a bio-based labeling fee; Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration fee ($30 million in 2017); an Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service fee ($20 million in 2017); and a Natural Resource and Conservation Service Conservation User fee.
Immigration inspection user fees would also be increased, as would custom user fees, which would raise $1.1 billion over 10 years.
The Environmental Protection Agency would begin collecting a “confidential business information management fee,” and the Federal Communications Commission would impose a spectrum licenses user fee to raise $4.8 billion over 10 years.
Cuts are down in the president’s final budget, from $34.2 billion in 2016 to $28.8 billion.
The budget includes a $10 million cut to grants for the Department of Health and Human Services abstinence-only sex education programs and a $1 million reduction to the Department of Labor’s “Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations” program.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

SANTA FE, N.M. — A proposed bill in New Mexico that would have required abortionists to care for babies that survive abortion attempts has died in committee.
H.B. 275 had been introduced by Reps. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, and Yvette Herrell, R-Alamogordo, and would make it a felony punishable with life imprisonment for abortionists to fail to care for a child who shows signs of life.
“A physician attempting to perform an abortion shall take all medically appropriate and reasonable steps to preserve the life and health of a born alive infant,” it reads, noting that the newborn child is to be considered a legal person under state law and entitled to all subsequent rights.
The bill further outlines that “[i]f an attempt to perform an abortion performed in a facility other than a hospital results in a live birth, a physician attending the abortion shall provide immediate medical care to the infant and call the 911 emergency response system for an emergency transfer of the infant to a hospital that shall provide medically appropriate and reasonable care and treatment to the infant.”
However, on Saturday, the New Mexico House Health Committee voted 6-4 against the bill, which was opposed largely by Democrats and state physicians.
“I’m very happy it went down,” Rep. Deborah Armstrong, D-Albuquerque, told the Santa Fe New Mexican. “This bill is taken almost verbatim from a national organization committed to outlawing abortion. It vilifies doctors and scares everyone away from access to care.”
But some testified in favor of the legislation during a public hearing on Thursday, including one local resident who said that she knew of an abortionist who stabbed a baby after it survived the procedure.
“This legislation supplements the federal Infant Born Alive Protection Act and ensures these babies receive the same proper care as any newborn,” Montoya stated. “Due to the lack of any current regulation of the abortion industry in New Mexico, there is no indication whether or not the existing law is being enforced since there is no accountability. How can we expect any industry, like the abortion industry, to self-report against their own perceived self-interest?”
The bill follows an investigation into the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center by the New Mexico Alliance for Life. The group found that while the Center acknowledged in its protocol that some children survive abortions, it did not provide direction on how to care for such infants or suggest that any aid be provided at all.
As previously reported, lawmakers in New Hampshire likewise struck down a bill last week requiring abortionists to care for born alive infants, as well as legislation that would have banned abortionists from performing dilation and extraction abortions, also known as dismemberment abortions.


Canada military base
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

This will have the effect of creating seven 100% Muslim cities all over Canada. In those cities, will the Muslims, in their gratitude, forget all about Islam’s doctrines of warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers? Of course they won’t, but Canadian officials, like officials all over the West, do not recognize that those doctrines even exist, and so are not making any provisions for what might happen if Muslims in these new cities do start to misunderstand Islam on a large scale.
“BREAKING: Liberals to build refugee camps on seven Canadian military bases — Taxpayers will fund mosques, Korans,” by Ezra Levant, The Rebel, February 8, 2016 (thanks to Kathy Shaidle):
The Canadian military has been ordered by Justin Trudeau’s Liberals to draft plans to house more than 6,000 Muslim migrants on a long-term basis at military bases, according to documents obtained exclusively by The Rebel (see below.)
Included in the Department of National Defence budgets are hundreds of thousands of dollars set aside for “religious support,” including the purchase of Muslim Korans, prayer mats and foot-washing towels.
The plans also call for the construction of mosques or “worship centres,” using taxpayers dollars.
The planning documents, in English and French, were released in response to a Rebel “Access to Information” request about religious expenditures by the Department of National Defence.
But the detailed Quebec budget plans also shed light on the sheer scale of the Trudeau government’s plans to set up refugee camp-style accommodations on seven Canadian Forces Bases across Quebec and Ontario.
The budget for Quebec alone totals more than $46 million for the first six months.
For a typical migrant family, that’s a $200,000/year subsidy — not including medicare or welfare.
It’s shocking that Canadian Armed Forces personnel will be ordered to abandon the coalition battle against ISIS and return to Canada to become waiters, chauffeurs and social workers for Muslim migrants, and that Canadian Forces Bases will be turned into squalid refugee camps.
It’s a disgrace that Canadian military personnel have been sent eviction notices to make way for foreign migrants.
But for the DND’s budget to be diverted away from military purposes and towards buying Korans and building mosques for foreign migrants, is especially outrageous.



Joe Wolverton, II J.D.

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Sen. Ted Cruz
Every day since his announcement that he would run for president, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has faced questions about his constitutional qualification to hold that office, particularly in regard to the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II.
Although the issue appears nearly daily on some blog or in some online article, it is not a new question. In fact, over two years ago — when Cruz was a newly elected senator — The New American carried an article by this reporter analyzing the constitutional considerations of this now very relevant problem.
Is it, in fact, a problem? For Cruz, the short answer is yes. For two reasons. First, because he does not fit the Founders’ definition of a natural born citizen; and second, because for a man who claims to hold the Founders and the Constitution in such high regard, it would appear self-serving and hypocritical to ignore both of those sources and seek the presidency anyway.
To begin the investigation, I’ll reprint what I wrote previously pertaining to Cruz and his qualification:
At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, a person born subject to the British Crown could hold “double allegiance,” a concept similar to “dual citizenship” as understood today.
Our own Founding Fathers, nearly every one of whom was born in some outpost of the British Empire, feared the damage that could come from such divided loyalty. They instituted the “natural born citizen” qualification in order to avoid what Gouverneur Morris described during the Constitutional Convention as “the danger of admitting strangers into our public councils.”
As famed jurist of the early republic St. George Tucker, a contemporary of Morris, explained:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.
In fact, as indicated in early records of the naturalization process, men applying for American citizenship were required to make two renunciations of all fealty to foreign powers before swearing allegiance to the Republic of the United States.
As a matter of fact, the possibility of any legal acceptance of divided allegiance was explicitly rejected in a report issued by the House of Representatives in 1874:
“The United States have not recognized a “double allegiance.” By our law a citizen is bound to be “true and faithful” alone to our government.”
The practical effect of that proclamation is that in order to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, one would have to be free from a competing claim for allegiance from another nation.
And there’s the rub: Senator Cruz does have a competing claim — two, in fact. His father is Cuban and he (Cruz) was born in Canada. While it is true that Cruz has reportedly renounced his Canadian citizenship, that act has little bearing on the issue, as it is natural “born” citizen, not naturalized citizen, that is the Article II standard.
Back to the historical account.
That such a schizophrenic situation was not only anticipated but accepted by His Majesty’s government during the time of the American founding can be inferred from the impressment of American sailors into the service of the Crown. During the War for Independence, British ships would block American ships from sailing and then the seamen on the British vessels would board the American ships and force the Americans to serve the side of the Empire.
The insistence on the part of the British that anyone born within the realm was a British subject regardless of any voluntary severance thereof and subsequent vow of allegiance to another prince was a significant factor in the hostilities known as the War of 1812.
Finally, in this regard, the British required no process of naturalization as such. Simply being born within the dominions of the monarchy of Great Britain was sufficient to endow one with the rights and privileges granted to any British subject. Nothing such a person did later in life (including becoming a citizen of another country) would ever alter his status as subject.
Despite the clarity of the historical record, some supporters of Cruz cite the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as further evidence that although born outside the United States to a foreign father, Cruz fits the 14th Amendment’s definition of a natural born citizen.
The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.
The principal architect of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was Michigan Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, a Republican representing Detroit.
Senator Howard crafted much of the language that was eventually ratified as part of the 14th Amendment.
During the debates that embroiled the Senate in the years following the Civil War, Senator Howard insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted into Section 1 of the 14th Amendment being considered by his colleagues. In the speech with which he proposed the alteration, Howard declared:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
How could a person “born in the United States” be simultaneously a citizen and a “foreigner” or “alien” if the mere fact of nativity settled the question of citizenship?
Another legislator commenting at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Representative John Bingham, provided the following clarification of the meaning behind the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause:
Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. [Emphasis added.]
While similar questions have been raised regarding the Article II eligibility of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) who ran for president in 2000 and in 2008, and Mitt Romney, who ran in 2008 and 2012, the cases of those two men are distinct from that of Cruz.
Both McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone to an American father serving overseas in the military, and Romney, whose father was born in Mexico to American parents, pass constitutional muster.
In this case of Senator Cruz, however, there is no debate that at the time of his birth his father was not an American citizen, and so the senator is the child of at least one person with a legal allegiance to a foreign sovereignty — in his case, either Cuba or Canada. Therefore, no matter how badly some conservatives wish he did, Senator Ted Cruz does not conform to the accepted legal definition of “natural born citizen.”
The British statutes whose language and spirit were grafted by our Founders into our Constitution made it clear that in order to be a “natural born subject” of the king, one’s father must have been a subject of that monarch at the time of the child’s birth. Otherwise, one could not be a natural born subject as defined in the law. One simply could not be a subject if the father was, at the time of the child’s birth, not a subject himself.
Or, in the words of the Apostle James: “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?”
Finally, someone as professedly committed to the Constitution and to the men who framed it must not look for loopholes that will serve their own desire for power. Such an act would send the wrong message to the millions who share the senator’s respect for the document and the drafters and might even leave a bitter taste in their mouths.