Republicans who are urging Senator Ted Cruz, R. Texas, to run for president in 2016 should think twice. He would make hypocrites of every republican who challenged Barack Obama’s eligibility for not being born in the United States. After three years of criticism and doubt, Obama suddenly produced a birth certificate in 2011, which purports to be authentic from the state of Hawaii. There are many who believe the birth certificate to be layered by computer graphics technicians.

But that’s not the issue here. There are no doubts about the birth place of Ted Cruz. He was born in a country called Canada, not the United States, for which there are no questions. Therefore, he is not a natural born citizen, though a citizen by virtue of being born to two parents who were.

The hullabaloo over Obama has mostly centered on his alleged birth in Kenya, which is just as much another country as is Canada. I am personally convinced that Obama was not born in America, for various reasons, which would make him ineligible to be the president, just as Kissinger and Madeline Albright were ineligible because they were born outside the U.S.

Ted Cruz might be a really good guy who would make a good president. But we can’t promote a double standard, just because he’s republican with Hispanic roots.

The argument that both his parents were U.S. citizens does not stand. What is inarguable is where he was born. That’s what matters. It has sure mattered in the disputes over Barack Obama.

The framers of the constitution inserted that clause in order to avert anyone rising to presidential power that might have a divided loyalties and/or allegiance to another country. I’m sure Senator Cruz’s loyalty is 100% American. He also knows his eligibility will become an issue, which is why he recently renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Doesn’t matter. He’s ineligible. And all the birthers who have jumped on Cruz’s bandwagon will be making hypocrites of themselves, which will bode poorly for their political agenda. Democrats will seize the opportunity to make a really BIG DEAL about his place of birth, and with good cause.

To the Tea Partyers and Republicans: Find another Hispanic to support. You’ll lose again with Ted Cruz.

Take a closer look at Susana Martinez, republican governor of New Mexico, who is enjoying the highest approval rating of all 50 governors of this country. She was born in El Paso, to Hispanic parents, went to law school and became a District Attorney.

Being Hispanic and female, she’d cover two bases of important bloc voters. And, from all accounts, she appears to be highly respected.

 Click here: Susana Martinez – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

19 Responses to SAY NO TO SEN. TED CRUZ FOR 2016

  1. Swifty September 15, 2013 at 2:01 pm #


  2. Ron Kenerly September 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

    Well stated Marshall. If a person is not born to American parents in the USA, lived his whole life, and educated wholly in the USA, that person should not be eligible to hold the office.
    Living and/or being educated in a foreign country does change the way a person thinks, I can guarantee that without doubt. Those changes, no matter how subtle will and does make a difference that can not be discounted.

  3. Richard September 15, 2013 at 2:07 pm #


    I agree with you that Obama is not legally qualified to be President by virtue of his birth.
    I further comment that he has clearly proven he is not qualified by virtue of his very poor performance. Your suggestion reference Gov. Martinez is very interesting; her law-enforcement background both family and experience and marriage is very pertinent.


  4. Pete September 15, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

    I will be watching all with great interest and concern. There was recently a straw poll which included Jeb Bush,

    Of the people mentioned—to me he is the most qualified. Of course everyone will immediately connect him to 41 and 43….and of course how do you not. I hope people will also remember he was a very successful governor in his own right and his own man. Didn’t always agree with him—but never doubted his honesty and integrity.

    For me and I hope all police and fire personnel, was Jeb’s steerage of the return of 12% high risk retirement points reduced under the democrat Buddy McKay when he was running the state house. Of all the potential R candidates at this early point only one had a very direct positive impact on me and my children.

    Will be an interesting election season.

  5. Christopher Jones September 15, 2013 at 4:10 pm #


  6. Tom September 15, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

    Totally agree…the United States should be run by true United States Americans, born, bred and raised her…with no other loyalties.

  7. Mia September 15, 2013 at 6:30 pm #

    Marshall, I agree completely. Cruz should stay in the Senate. My sister and I were discussing the issue of American’s Born Abroad, who have American citizenship from birth, as do we both because our father was serving in the US military when we were born. We don’t think children like us are eligible to run for president, but Senator McCain did. He was born on an American facility under the American flag, so that’s a different situation.

    I was born in a German hospital, not on a US military facility, and to further complicate the situation, my mother was not an American citizen yet. She was a “DP”, a displaced person from Poland. When my sister came along, we were living on an American base, and she was born in a US military hospital in Munich. She claims she could not run for president and neither could I. Because McCain ran, she might be wrong. However, Cruz’s parents were not on “government” orders to be in Canada, so I say he is not eligible to run for president.

    Thanks again for bringing vital issues to the attention of your readers, Mia

  8. Charlie D. September 15, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

    There are few and fewer natural born citizens of the United States of America by percentage of the population!

    Soon, if not run by the Muslims, we’ll be mandated by “Americans” born outside our borders, or greater within by illegial parentage.

    Stop it while it’s only a “pin head” before it becomes a mountain – act now – not later!

    I say “No”!

    Charlie D.

  9. Linda S. September 15, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

    I agree entirely, with saying NO to Ted Cruz in 2016. Simply, he is not “natural born”, many items involved concerning this. There are key eligibility lawsuits still waiting at the SCOTUS, concerning the current President’s LACK of “natural born” citizen standing. I believe they WILL BE heard when the high court is convinced “it’s time” and violent rioting in the streets will be unlikely as it would have been previously in the U.S.

    However, Marshall Frank said, and I agree entirely: “Senator Cruz may be a good man, but his nomination would create many more problems for the republican party, which they can’t afford.”

  10. Marty September 15, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

    Rules are rules, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing they may be. Aren’t there also questions about Rubin’s possibility as well?

    Anyone been watching Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC? He looks young but he sure makes sense!

    • Tommy Thompson September 16, 2013 at 3:26 am #

      I’ve mentioned Trey Gowdy many times…I’d like to see a Palin/Gowdy ticket.

  11. paul vincent zecchino September 15, 2013 at 10:14 pm #

    Excellent point, Marshall. The Left will file a blizzard of court challenges to Cruz, and different from those pending against the current president, the Left will make them stick.

  12. Bob September 16, 2013 at 12:55 am #

    Can you say John McCain

  13. Keyalaska September 16, 2013 at 2:01 am #

    I agree when I read this I had already thought of this problem– Obammaaa was slipped in on us and they did a good job of it

  14. Tommy Thompson September 16, 2013 at 3:28 am #

    actually Ted has at least two problems. His father was NOT a US citizen when Ted was born AND he was born in Canada. I’ve been telling people that I filed one of the ballot challenges against Obama here in Alabama and I’d be a hypocrite if I were to vote for Ted Cruz…even though he’s a great guy.

  15. Art Locke September 16, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    Keep up the good work. your comments are always refreshing. Connie and I just returned from attending Matt s retirement. 30years(5 in drop).

  16. Author Lee September 16, 2013 at 8:35 pm #

    “Natural born citizen” is used one time in the Constitution as part of the eligibility to be president. The accepted definition of the term in the 1776 period was a citizen born to parents who were both citizens of the same country. The place of birth is secondary. Our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent a person with dual citizenship from becoming president.

    Both Cruz and Obama only have one parent who was a citizen at the time of their birth, and both had dual citizensihps.

    Republicans have failed to challenge Obama, and now it is probably too late. Therefore, Curz must be considered eligible unless Obama is impeached.

  17. JKR September 17, 2013 at 1:42 am #

    Interesting article as to whether or not Cruz is eligible:

    Cleveland-based PolitiFact Ohio has the distinction of being the closest PolitiFact unit to Canada, which might explain why we received several email and Twitter messages about Ted Cruz — the Republican junior senator from Texas who is “considering a presidential run,” according to friends and confidants quoted by the conservative blog National Review Online.

    “Please tell Ted Cruz he can’t be president,” said an email to us. “He was born in Canada!”

    We have no interest in another “birther” controversy, but we were curious for more information.

    The basic biography: Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, while his parents were working there.

    His Cuban-born father, who is now an American citizen, was not at the time. His mother was born in Delaware. The family returned to the United States when Cruz was 4.

    The Constitution gives three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen,” a term not defined in the Constitution.

    That lack of precision has given rise to controversy and legal challenges, but has never resulted in a definitive determination by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    For that reason, PolitiFact refrained from making a Truth-O-Meter ruling in a May 2008 article that looked at the question of presidential eligibility for someone not physically born in the United States. The question had been raised about John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone when his father was stationed there in the U.S. Navy.

    The issue was not likely to come before the high court, the article noted, and most legal scholars said McCain would have little to worry about if it did. It also noted that McCain’s campaign had commissioned a bipartisan duo of legal scholars to investigate the issue, and they concluded his status as a natural-born citizen was not in question.

    Still as it was then, the issue remains rooted in legal opinions, and we make no ruling here either. But we can offer more support for the argument that McCain and Cruz are “natural born citizens,” thanks to a more recent report on presidential qualifications by the Congressional Research Service and a nicely sourced posting by associate editor David A. Graham of The Atlantic.

    CRS says: “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.'”

    There is no requirement of two “citizen-parents,” CRS found.

    The CRS report took note of a federal court decision by the Northern District of California, which said that McCain would qualify as a citizen “at birth,” and thus would be considered a “natural born” citizen, since he was born outside the United States to citizen parents.

    The CRS did not look specifically at Cruz, and we can’t ask it to comment on him. The service works exclusively for Congress.

    But Cruz, by being entitled to citizenship at birth because his mother was a U.S. citizen and by being in the U.S. for more than 14 years, would seem to qualify as a “natural born citizen” under the definition in the report.

    When discussing McCain, the CRS report draws on immigration law and says: “The uncertainty concerning the meaning of the natural-born qualification in the Constitution has provoked discussion from time to time, particularly when the possible presidential candidacy of citizens born abroad was under consideration. There has never been any authoritative adjudication. It is possible that none may ever develop. However, there is substantial basis for concluding that the constitutional reference to a natural-born citizen includes every person who was born a citizen, including native-born citizens and citizens by descent.”

    So legally, the question is unsettled. Perhaps it will be if Cruz ever becomes a presidential contender.

  18. Fuzz T. Was September 17, 2013 at 10:52 pm #

    In the history of the United States 44 men have been president. Of these, 34 were born after1787 and subject to the “natural-born Citizen” requirement. With two exceptions, these 34 presidents were born in the U.S. of parents who were both U.S. citizens. The exceptions were Barack H. Obama and Chester A. Arthur. President Obama’s situation is well known. President Arthur’s situation is less so.

    Attorney Leo Donofrio researched the matter and discovered that President Arthur was not a natural-born citizen and hid that fact from the nation. Arthur was born in Vermont in 1829. His mother, Malvina Stone, was also born in Vermont. His father, William Arthur, an anti-slavery Baptist clergyman, was born in Ireland in 1796, immigrated to Canada about 1819 and finally the United States about 1821. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after the birth of Chester Arthur. This made President Arthur both a U.S. and British citizen at birth.

    In 1880, while running for Vice-President with President James A. Garfield, Arthur P. Hinman made a charge that Chester Arthur was ineligible to be Vice-President because in was born in Ireland or Canada. The charge was discredited but Hinman went on to write a book called, “How a British Subject Became President of the United States” Arthur was not a natural-born citizen, but not for the reason claimed by Hinman. He was ineligible because his father was a British Subject at the time of his birth. Arthur, a lawyer, repeatedly gave false and misleading statements to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father’s heritage, immigration status and age. Later, Arthur burned most of his family documents. He even lied about his own age. He claimed to have been born in 1830, the date recorded on his gravestone. His attempts to conceal his father’s history suggest he was aware of his ineligibility, per Article 2, Section 1 and the Law of Nations, to be President or Vice-President.

    Note: Justice Horace Gray, wrote the Wong Kim Ark decision, and was appointed to the Court by President Arthur. The Opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is tarnished, since Gray received a personal benefit from the result. By conferring birthright citizenship on Wong, the Court also conferred it on President Arthur, legitimizing his presidency and his appointment of Horace Gray to the Supreme Court.