I haven’t always agreed with Ann Coulter, but I am glad she wrote this column. She is discussing the new charges of ”birtherism” brought by Cruz supporters against those of us who think his birth and citizenship are valid concerns.
”As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)
Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.” (Never let the kids at Kinko’s do your legal research.)”
It’s disturbing to see many of the Republican faithful, who make such a show of being in favor of the Constitution and ”conservative principles” saying that Cruz is a ‘natural-born citizen’. And even worse, that the question is so complicated and vague that we just have to give up on it and support Cruz because ‘he’s the most conservative’ candidate.
Or worse yet, to say or imply that we have to get behind Cruz because Trump. ‘Trump is a liberal. Trump is a phony.’ And so on. There is a lot of knee-jerk anti-Trump sentiment amongst the Cruz cult. Am I being biased when I refer to Cruz supporters as a cult? I admit I am biased. I am biased in favor of upholding the time-honored interpretations of who or what is a citizen, and I am very biased in favor of the idea that we choose only those of our folk as our leaders, especially in this time in which we are all but dispossessed in our own land, and actually facing an existential threat. This is not a time to declare that citizenship does not matter, and to open the door for anybody and everybody from anywhere to hold the highest office in our land. And that is what these anti-Trump Cruz partisans are doing. They are trying to create a new, bad precedent, whether they intend it or not.
I’ve hearkened back to when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor of California. At the time, Gray Davis was governor, and as such he was a disaster. In the desperation to get shut of an inept (at best) governor in Davis, California Republicans, even those who called themselves ”conservatives” rallied behind Schwarzenegger — not because he was the best man for the job — he was foreign-born and not all that conservative — but because he was, as they said, ”electable”, and the most conservative candidate, Tom McClintock, was not very telegenic and therefore ”not electable.” So the California Republicans proceeded to trash McClintock, often in very personal ways, just because they saw Arnold as their best chance. Not a native born American? Well, maybe it’s time we got rid of that outdated requirement, said these Arnie supporters. Yes, we need a Constitutional amendment allowing for foreign-born people to become President of these United States.
Bad idea. Look where we are now, and notice how blasé most Americans now are about the requirement for the President to be a natural-born citizen, a child of two American parents if not born on U.S. soil.
The word ”conservative” has lost all credibility and lost any respect which it once evoked, thanks in part to the frauds who bear the label ”conservative.” As we’ve seen, it’s been, too often, self-designated ”conservatives” who are all too willing to throw away our birthright, to compromise our Constitution and our principles, to turn against their very constituents and kinsfolk, in favor of ”immigrants” and refugees. It’s been ”conservatives” like those Wall Street Journal moneychangers who have campaigned for Open Borders year after year. It’s been ”conservative” bankers and financial interests who have created the financial debacle that has been an ongoing crisis, all in the name of ”conserving” their own personal wealth and power. So naturally the label ‘conservative’ has lost any cachet it may have once had.
But if anyone wants to call himself conservative he or she has to be in favor of conserving the very basis of this country and way of life: the people. The flesh-and-blood people, the folk, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. Old-stock, colonial-vintage, generational Americans. They are the core and the heart of this country. The people and the land.
Anyone who is willing, out of some kind of personality-cult infatuation for some individual, to compromise our laws and traditions is not a ”conservative” in any meaningful or good sense of the word.
Anyone who is willing to contribute towards making it easier for those from outside our fold to be elected to the top position in ths country is not ”conservative.” Any healthy folk should and does insist that one of their own is to be their leader. To the extent that a country does not value this requirement, they are neither conservative nor possessed of integrity as a people.
Cases in point: look at how France elected Nicolas Sarkozy, who was of Hungarian/Ashkenazi ancestry. And note how they sat still while he laid down the law about how they had to participate in metissage, mixing with the Others in their midst, or else face consequences.
Britain has had a string of several Scottish prime ministers, the latest of whom, Cameron, is Scottish and Ashkenazi. And then there’s Ed Millband, born of a Russian-Jewish Communist immigrant father. Where are the indigenous English leaders of Britain, considering that the core of the country called Great Britain is and always was England. The English have produced numberless men of great talent and stature. And yet there are no Englishmen fit to govern England?
In this country, we have Americans aplenty to run for President. We don’t need to import people from other countries to govern us. Especially if the countries they are from are countries with whom we now have issues: Hispanics aspire to achieve what they consider a reconquest of ”their” America, and to depose the usurping ‘gringo.’ So let’s elect someone of Hispanic descent and someone born outside America; that’ll show them.
To return to Ann Coulter’s column, she makes a good point that if the much-criticized ”birthers” were right in 2008 then they are also right now, in the case of Cruz. The Cruz cult is behaving much like the average liberal when they refuse to heed facts that undermine their inconsistent positions. They lash out at those who raise the Cruz eligibility issue much as did Democrats when the same questions were raised about their idol. They react with emotion, name-calling, subject-changing, tu quoques, and all the rest of the irrational responses so typical of the left. That, too, says volumes to me.