For Progressives – Government Control Is The Solution To All Problems

Another stunning performance by master communicator Ted Cruz

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to For Progressives – Government Control Is The Solution To All Problems

  1. 1wanderingtruthseeker says:

    Bravo!!!! Excellent definition of Climate Change!!!!! Do I see running mate material?

  2. rah says:

    The left long ago understood he was a force to be reckoned with and upon coming to that conclusion immediately started painting him as an ultra right wing wacko. I sincerely hope he can overcome that because I’m beginning to think he’s the best Republican candidate. Trump is proving to be just too volatile for my liking and I have serious doubts he would handle the job or be effective as POTUS.

    • Andy DC says:

      Trump’s perceived volatility is not all bad. There would be a fear factor among our enemies that we have probably not seen since Reagan. He will be peceived as someone not to be messed with.

      Not saying I’m endorsing Trump as the best candidate, but the media has been trying from day one to slap the “crazy” and “dangerous” label on him, just as they did with Reagan. That is in both cases because they had the utter nerve to talk back to them and plainly speak their mind.

      • rah says:

        Yea, but I base my judgment not on what they say but what he has been saying. I also doubt Trump has the political acumen to accomplish most of what he claims he will do.

  3. annieoakley says:

    Some of the people applauded however the argument went right over the lib reporter’s head. He has been indoctrinated to never think for himself or listen to another point of view.

  4. Crashx says:

    The title on the video shows that the intent of the videographer was a “Gotcha” question to show that Cruz is not on the Alarmist Team. Quickly throwing the contemporary invective “Denial”/Denialist and including “absurb” for political points. The questioner clearly wasn’t actually listening to the response. Cruz was clear of the facts and on target with the analysis that Global Warming and Climate Change are political constructs drawing from the bastardization of science. Theories that swim in the uncertainties of a complex, chaotic and unpredictable realm of science. All for global political goals, not science.

  5. Steve says:

    I thought it was very interesting that at 2:35 time into the video the questioner admitted he didn’t know about the global cooling scare of the 70’s. I think Senator Cruz should recommend this blog when confronted by global warming fearmongers. They might learn something. Thanks, Tony

  6. Ted says:

    I like Cruz, and I think he’d be a batter president than most. But the fact remains that he’s NOT ELIGIBLE. By all accounts, he was born in Canada, to an American citizen, and a Cuban. If it could be definitively proven that Obama was born in Kenya, that would still leave him on equal footing with Cruz, in terms of eligibility. The democrats are on their knees, praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that Cruz wins the nomination. I see two possibilities:

    The minute he’s officially the republican candidate, that same media we saw in Wednesday’s debate, will start pointing out where Cruz was born. We’ll see 6 solid months of adds proclaiming the hypocrisy of republicans over their treatment of Obama, and constant demands to see Cruz’s birth certificate.


    Next October, that same impartial media will suddenly “discover” where Cruz was born. It would be just like Bush Jr.’s desertion papers, except this one would be true.

    In either case, millions of principled republicans will refuse to vote for him, and the courts may well remove him from the ballot. If it’s the October surprise version, that would leave Kankles running unopposed. She may be the weakest candidate since Dukakis, but she’ll beat Cruz on this issue alone. Basically, if Cruz wins the nomination, we should all hope Trump goes rouge.

    • wizzum says:

      Bullshit, If you do not need to be naturalized but are automatically recognized as an American citizen, as Cruz was then you are by definition Natural born.

      • Ted says:

        And the exact same thing could be said about Obama, regardless of where he was born. To my knowledge, there has never been a claim that Obama’s mother wasn’t a citizen. But that hasn’t stopped tens of millions of people, myself included, from arguing that he might not have been eligible.

        The definition of “natural born citizen” is far from settled. Plenty of us believe it means born here, of two citizen parents. Just 8 years ago, He was born to two citizen parents, one an Admiral, on an American naval base. But because that base was in panama, the democrats tried to kill John McCain’s candidacy with claims of ineligibility. – Just one, out of countless examples.
        Ted Cruz’s claim on natural born citizenship is far more tenuous, requiring the broadest possible reading of the statutes.

        While your statement may hold up in court, (or may not) public opinion is in no way bound by it. I have no idea whether or not you ever argued against Obama’s eligibility. But a very substantial portion of republicans did, and many still do. Perhaps more importantly, everyone knows about the controversy over Obama’s eligibility, and everyone associates it with republicans. (though it clearly started with Hilary Clinton) The idea of the republicans running a candidate who’s acknowledged birth situation is as bad as anything claimed about Obama, will be an anchor around their necks. Clinton and her fully owned media will pound that message like nothing you’ve ever heard. And for once, I’d agree with her. For a very large number of voters, myself included, supporting Cruz would be blind political hypocrisy. I won’t do it, and I’m certainly not the only one.

        • wizzum says:

          Ted, the simplest explanation is generally the most correct. If the Founders wanted a long string of proviso’s to be eligible to be president then they would have laid them out. They weren’t writing a Nancy Drew novel where secrets to the rules of ascendency were only visible at midday on the solstice standing on the south bank of the tidal basin and facing due west. Madison laid it out simply because it is simple.
          I don’t give a hoot who you are talking about. If they did not need to be Naturalized but were recognized as a US Citizen then they were Natural Born.

          Obama has a lot o’ skeletons in his closet I’m sure but I’m equally as sure he was Natural born.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Natural born originally meant born in the USA of a FATHER and a mother who were US Citizens. Under customary (Roman) law the child belonged to the father so the father’s status was critical. There has been nothing in the amendments to the Constitution to change that definition.

        Remember women were essentially the property of their fathers/brothers or their husbands up until recently so their status as a citizen was really a non-issue in the determination of the child’s citizenship. We women were still considered second class citizens when I was in school and went to college. It wasn’t until August 18, 1920, within my Mother’s lifetime that women were granted the right to vote.

        See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797) ) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”)

        chapter 19
        § 212. Of the citizens and natives.
        “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

        The war of 1812 was fought because the English followed Blackstone:

        To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

        So even if you invoke Blackstone (Think McCain) you STILL are stuck with the FATHER determining whether or not a child is natural born.

    • V. Uil says:

      John McCain was also not born in the US. Did not hear Obama utter one word about it. Why, because he was an American citizen at birth. It was not an issue.

      • rah says:

        McCain was born to a US service person who’s spouse (mother) was also a US Citizen, on a US military installation in a US military hospital. A little different.
        BUT! According to the US Code which is the definitive interpretation of the details not specified in the Constitution Cruz was born a Citizen of the United states:

        Here is pertinent law: U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401

        The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
        (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
        (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
        , That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
        (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
        (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
        (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
        (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
        (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
        , That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
        (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
        (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)

        • Ted says:

          There’s never been any question regarding Obama’s citizenship at birth. I’ve never seen a single assertion that he’s not as citizen. The controversy is over the difference between “citizen,” and “natural born citizen.” The definition of the latter is far less clear.

          But more importantly, we have to go back to the basic question. Should ANYONE lead a country he wasn’t born in? That’s certainly the question the media and the democrats will be asking. Does anyone really think they’ve forgotten all the controversy over Obama? They’re hungry for revenge, and a Cruz nomination will leave them drooling.

        • rah says:

          A “natural born” citizen is ANYONE who is a citizen at birth as defined by the US code. Doesn’t matter where you were born. IOW, if you aren’t “Naturalized” then your a “natural born” citizen . There is no other definitions thus all of that controversy over the definition of “natural born” was pure bullshit simply because there is not, according to US law, more than the two definitions. A citizen is either “Naturalized” or “Natural born”. You do know FDR was born in Canada don’t you? Thus by the provisions of the laws of the two countries he had dual citizenship at birth.

          On the other hand Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Naturalized US citizen and thus not eligible for the office of POTUS.

        • Ted says:

          Do you really not see the problem here? Are we really to the point of pretending there was never any controversy over Obama’s eligibility? I absolutely guarantee the democrats remember that controversy. And they’ll use it.

          You’re trying to counter a perceptual problem with a legalistic answer. The undeniable truth is that a huge number of Americans, myself included, think the leader of a country should have been born in it. I’ve certainly questioned Obama’s eligibility. (I think he was probably born in Hawaii, but traveling under a foreign passport as an adult proves his divided loyalty) I’m on record doing so, right on this page. Tony has certainly questioned his eligibility. And Gator. And plenty of other commenters here, along with tens of millions of other Americans. What do we say to the people who most assuredly will ask us how Cruz is different? I’m not willing to look my friends in the eye, and tell them that politics outweigh my principals. They don’t. But even for the people who will choose politics, will they be willing to be called racist hypocrites? Or will they just stay home, like they did last election?

          And on the legal side, the courts never ruled on any of the dozens of lawsuits against Obama’s eligibility. Every last one was thrown out on procedural grounds. If a suit against Cruz actually does make it to trial, the prosecution will include endless quotes from republicans about why Cruz shouldn’t be eligible. They just need to change the name. And in Cruz’s case, we already know what the birth certificate says.

        • rah says:

          It does not matter? Obama’s controversy had a lot to do with other issues other than citizenship. Multiple SSNs, contradictions of place of birth in published bios, questions about a birth certificate it took far too long to produce, withholding of academic and medical records, etc, etc, etc.

          I’m not denying the controversies. What I am stating is the US Law about citizenship as I see it pertaining each case taken individually. Obama nor McCain have ANYTHING to do with Cruz under the laws. Don’t you get that? They have NOTHING to do with each other by any objective standard. Either your a “natural born citizen” or your a “naturalized” citizen. If your the former and meet the other criteria as specified in the Constitution, then your legally eligible to serve as POTUS. If you do not meet all the criteria then your not legally eligible, even if lets say, your the Speaker of the House and the POTUS and VP are killed.

          I personally don’t care if you or even the majority of Americans don’t like that law of the land. If you don’t like it then go through the due process to change it. This is, after all, supposed to be a government of laws, and not men. Or do you think that people should be able to change laws by public opinion without due process simply because they don’t agree? If so, then your no better than the political opposition you claim to oppose.

        • Rah, I respectfully beg to differ. The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

          (By uniform is meant the same for all the States. In other words, that no State shall enjoy any special rule on naturalization, even if Congress would consent to it, but all States must have the same one.)

          A rule of naturalization is a rule that says under what circumstances a person is considered naturalized, or is to be naturalized. Thus, the power to establish such a rule includes the power to define what naturalization shall mean — the power to define the term.

          Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Therefore, implicitly the Constitution denies Congress the power to define natural-born status. In other words, Congress can only take existing individuals who are not citizens and make them into citizens (or vice versa, potentially make naturalized citizens back into non-citizens.) But they cannot lawfully declare in advance of a person’s birth that, based on certain criteria, the person is or shall be a natural-born citizen. If Congress tries to do so anyway, this is an unconstitutional action, and thus, legally null and void.

          Because Congress cannot define “natural-born” and because it’s not defined in the Constitution, that directly implies that the definition was generally agreed upon at the constitutional convention, and must have been precedent-based so that no need was seen to write it down in the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution implicitly incorporates whatever precedent-based definition existed that was generally accepted at the time the convention adopted the Constitution. We can learn what that definition was by studying the writings of the Framers from that time. But what we cannot validly do is cite unconstitutional provisions voted on by Congress as a source of the legitimate definition.

          None of this is necessarily meant as an argument against the nomination or election of Mr. Cruz. Whatever the authentic definition was and is, and however doubtful it is that he might meet it, I find it at least conceivable that he might do so, based on my own limited knowledge of the precedent that’s at issue. However, it’s very clear that the question cannot be resolved by recourse to any actual or purported act of Congress.

          — RT

        • Ted says:


          There are plenty of people who would dispute your interpretation of the laws regarding natural born citizenship. The dozens of lawsuits specifically aimed at Obama’s eligibility should make that point clearly. The question is the meaning of “natural born” and whether it comes automatically with everyone who became a citizen at birth. The legal opinion on the subject is far murkier than you appear to believe. The laws you cite aren’t generally even mentioned in the discussion, as the (conflicting) Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 are usually seen as the relevant statutes. The question has never been decided in any court. As we’ve seen recently, the beliefs of 5 people in robes plainly trump the text of any law today, so none of this even matters. But once again, I’m not arguing law, I’m arguing perception. That’s the only thing that matters in an election. Tens of millions of people saw Obama as ineligible. Every one of them, if they’re honest with themselves, will have the same problem with Cruz.

          The republicans are the party that the media associates with questioning Obama’s eligibility. Did you see the debate on Wednesday? Do you really think that media will ignore this subject? The only reason they haven’t brought it up yet is so they can use it against him in the general election, if necessary. They’ll demand that every single republican explain why it’s okay for the white guy, but not the black guy. They don’t care which republicans questioned Obama’s eligibility, and which didn’t. They want a good story first, and a favorable political outcome second. Truth and fairness are not in the mix.

          If he wins the nomination, there will absolutely be legal challenges to Cruz’s eligibility from the democrats, and probably some republicans. Whether or not those challenges are successful will rest on whether or not your interpretation of the law holds up, and whether any judge actually chooses to make a ruling this time. In Obama’s cases, as in all previous cases, the courts were very careful to NOT rule on the specifics. Every one of them was thrown out on procedural grounds. But even if the supreme court rules unanimously that anyone on earth can be president, it doesn’t mean anyone has to vote for him. That’s where the perception problem comes in. There are still plenty of us who will not vote for a foreigner. Probably a lot more republicans than democrats. It has nothing to do with me trying to rewrite any laws. That opinion is perfectly natural, consistent with the obvious intent of the natural born citizen clause, and, I expect, very common . And again, the democrats and the media will, at some point before the election, pound Cruz’s status as a foreigner into everyone’s heads. And they’ll pound their assertion that the only possible reason any republican could accept Cruz’s eligibility is racism.

          Yes, McCain’s case was very different. But it still led to some of the reaction I’m predicting. And that was before the democrats and the media were out for revenge on this exact subject. Obama’s case, on the other hand, would be exactly the same as Cruz’s, if the assertions about his foreign birth were true. One parent a citizen, one not, and foreign birth. Those other things you mention are completely irrelevant to those lawsuits filed against him. If lying and fraud affected eligibility, we wouldn’t have had a president in decades.

          This is a legitimate question, not an implication of anything. I’m genuinely curious. Were you this adamant about Obama’s eligibility, when it first came up?

          Either way, I’m done for the night. Happy Halloween. And watch out for the Wicked Witch of the West Wing:

        • rah says:

          Ted I was not so adamant about Obama’s eligibility at first. In fact at first I doubted it. Then I started researching to try and make an informed decision. That is when I learned that FDR had been born outside of the United States and that there has never been a legal definition of “natural born” developed in US law. After doing so I came to the conclusion that Obama was in fact a natural born citizen simply because he had not been naturalized. Nowhere is there provision in the laws for any other types or class of citizenship. It’s a case of either your are or you aren’t. You either a natural born citizen or IOW born a US citizen under the prevailing laws or your naturalized citizen to which citizenship was granted after your birth. There are no other types or classes of citizenship in US Law.

          I eventually said what I thought but did not tend to argue it simply because it was pointless and during elections years when stuff like this comes up and emotions run high it becomes fruitless to try to discuss in open political forums because it will always lead to an argument because for the vast majority of folks it is about partisanship and not the law anyway.

          Let me say that I respect the opinions of those that do not agree with me here and admit there is ambiguity because of the lack of legal definition of natural born. I am grateful for the manner in which it has been discussed. We will just have to agree to disagree because in the end the only way it can be resolved as to what the law truly is by a ruling of the SCOTUS which is not forthcoming. But in the mean time it is a fact that FDR was born in Canada and so a practical precedent that the definition for “natural born” does not require being born in the US or even a US territory or possession and that dual citizenship is not a disqualifying circumstance was established long ago.

          My own calculations about Sen. Cruz eligibility does not take into account what the political opposition will say or do simply because I don’t think it matters much. They will tear into any person who gets the Republican nomination with everything they can find or make up (As Dan Rather did with Bush) no matter who gets the nomination. I will not let such considerations of electability effect my own judgment as to who I believe can do the best job simply because the opposition will deem any Republican to be unworthy. God I wish we had another Regan that could reveal them for the chattering class of fools they are with a simple smile and sigh and “There they go again”.

          Any one here remember Berkley Breathed and Bloom County with Grandpa hunting naked liberals in the bushes?

        • Cruz being the astute attorney that he is, it’s hard for me to imagine that he would let things get to the point where he’s about to get thrown off the ballot by some partisan court AND all or a significant number of the primary votes have already been cast. If he sees that that’s possibly coming down the track, I think he will withdraw from the race so as to allow the people as much chance as possible for their own second preference to be expressed.

          This debate has major parallels with the issue of the filibuster. In the past, both sides would sometimes rumble about exercising “the nuclear option” on the Senate filibuster, but neither of them really wanted to because of concerns about what would happen if and when they were in the minority. So they decided to hold back — and it’s been especially the Republicans who have benefited from this restraint over the years, so they’ve been even more reticent about it when the subject has come up.

          But now, things are changing. The Democrats and their allies are becoming militant, dropping the Queensberry rules here, there, and now everywhere. They perceive that they have sufficient public support for their agenda that they can get away with such bad behavior.

          So now, there’s a veritable cacophony of voices on the Republican side saying now is the time that we have to “press the button” on the filibuster. These people surely know that there’s no going back once that happens. And they surely know there will be retaliation for a first strike. But they’ve calculated that the ongoing harm from adhering to the Queensberry rules when the other side has utterly tossed all rules out the window, and is winning … while the referees are siding almost exclusively with the Left every time an action is challenged … that that harm is so great that there’s no longer any net gain in keeping the filibuster. It looks like, even as Republicans continue to use it, it won’t be around too much longer. The judgement has been made by many that the benefits of keeping it are now outweighed by the fact that the other side always gets what they want when they’re in the majority, regardless of the filibuster being employed. They just find a way every time, and somehow conservatives cannot muster the support among the grass roots that would be necessary to resist that tyranny.

          So … the filibuster is increasingly seen as having outlived its utility to conservatism, and therefore to the country. The implication is that people are ready to put all their eggs in the basket of popular will — and, sink or swim, to accept whatever outcome results from that. They now believe that having civilized rules has become a detriment to the effort to preserve civilization, because the average member of the public no longer cares enough about the rules (or even about the general concept of rules) to lift a finger in defense of those who adhere to them and then get trampled by bullies. In effect, the public is now siding, by default, with the bullies. It should hardly come as a surprise, then, that Republican thinkers are starting to advocate dropping handicaps that they have voluntarily (and unilaterally!) accepted for themselves. There used to be a huge dividend of public good will for doing so, but that check has been bouncing for about ten years now. At some point people will have to accept that the public has gone bankrupt in the currency of good will. Even if most of us resist acknowledging this, it will only get worse. On the other hand, dropping all rules like the other side has done is not acceptable, either. Rather than just saying “All right then, nuke everything!” we should be desiring a new equilibrium, since the old one is clearly no longer tenable.

          This is not an endorsement of Cruz; I could argue half the day against him, as I could for every one of this crop of candidates. I just offer a few observations because perspective is important. You never know when you’ll need it. It might even save your life some day.

          — RT

      • Gail Combs says:

        I am sorry but you are talking a citizen and not a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen was specified to make sure there was zero question of foreign influence and Obummer is a classic example of WHY that stipulation was made.

        The problem is Cruz, like my old boyfriend, Mark, had DUAL( triple) citizenship until he was age 18 at which point he had to make a choice. (Mark chose Canada)That makes him NOT a Natural Born Citizen. He is closer to that of a naturalized citizen since he had to declare his citizenship at the age of 18. (So where is Obummer’s declaration of citizenship or did he go to college as a foreign student to get the perks and that is why his records are sealed?)

        United States Office of Personnel Management Investigations Service

        1. Dual Citizenship by Birth: A child born abroad to United States citizens will acquire not only United States citizenship but perhaps the citizenship of the country in which the child was born (jus solis). Similarly, a child born in the United States to foreign parents may acquire both U.S. citizenship (jus solis) and the citizenship of the parents (jus sanguinis)….

        DUAL CITIZENSHIP: Dual citizenship is the simultaneous possession of two citizenships. It arises because there is no common international law relating to citizenship. The most common reasons for dual citizenship are these:·
        Marriage to a citizen of another country.
        Adoption by parents who are citizens of another country.
        Birth in a country that grants citizenship by birth, to parents who are citizens of a country that grants citizenship by descent

        2. Involuntary Loss of Citizenship: This entry lists the reasons a particular country may choose to withdraw the citizenship of one of its citizens. Most countries’ laws dictate the loss of citizenship upon a citizen’s voluntary acquisition of another country’s citizenship. The interpretation of what constitutes “voluntary” is not uniform, however. In certain countries it is not considered voluntary unless the person makes an explicit declaration of the citizenship of the other country. For example, in Austria a person automatically obtains Austrian citizenship when appointed as a professor at an Austrian university. Some countries interpret this as “involuntary” citizenship and, according to their laws, citizenship is not lost. Other countries state that if a citizen obtains another nationality, and makes no effort to renounce it, citizenship is lost.
        Loss of naturalized citizenship usually occurs when the naturalized citizen:
        · Resided for a specified time in another country.
        · Obtained citizenship through fraud or false statements.
        · Did not renounce previous citizenship….

        PROBLEMS WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP: Dual citizenship is not particularly desirable in many countries because a dual citizen is sometimes placed in a situation in which their obligation to the country is in conflict with the laws of the other country. An example is the problem of conflicting military obligations. In addition, a person’s dual citizenship may hamper efforts to provide diplomatic or consular protection when the person is abroad.

        The majority of countries do not recognize dual citizenship. That is, their governments do not recognize a person’s prerogative to the rights, privileges, or immunities that may be the prerogatives of citizens of the other nation.

        1. Dual Citizenship by Birth: A child born abroad to United States citizens will acquire not only United States citizenship but perhaps the citizenship of the country in which the child was born (jus solis). Similarly, a child born in the United States to foreign parents may acquire both U.S. citizenship (jus solis) and the citizenship of the parents (jus sanguinis).

        2. Dual Citizenship by Marriage: Dual citizenship can occur when a person automatically acquires their spouse’s citizenship upon marriage.

        1. Majority Divestiture: This option allows a person with dual citizenship, upon reaching the age of majority (i.e., age of legal adulthood), to decide which citizenship to keep.
        Many countries have this provision in their constitution, charter, or in their citizenship laws. This is often used in cases of dual citizenship which arise due to adoption. [Remember Obama was supposedly ADOPTED by Soetoro]
        2. Generational Requirement: This consists of limiting the principle of citizenship by descent (jus sanguinis) to the first or second generations of individuals born and residing abroad.
        3. Registration: In countries where non-native children must be registered at their parent’s country’s consular office shortly after birth, omitting this registration documentation can make it impossible or difficult for the child to later acquire the citizenship of either country.
        4. Delayed Conferment of Citizenship: Persons, not born in the country where their parents are citizens, can be given the right to acquire their parents’ citizenship upon renunciation of any other citizenship….

  7. Michael 2 says:

    An impressive performance. Very few answers are “yes/no”. So he lays out the scenario so that when he says “yes” to “climate change”, everyone present knows what he means — the climate has changed since the beginning of time and will change to the end of time so “yes” climate change exists. The question itself is stupid because it reveals nothing by any possible answer.

  8. Rosco says:

    Despite having his whole philosophy totally destroyed by calm logic and reality the clown who wanted to elicit the “Yes/No” answer from Cruz will continue to subserviently and mindlessly follow the climate change religion down into poverty.

    You just can’t deal with zealots on an intellectual level because zealotry is emotional and often irrational.

  9. Steve Case says:

    I love the President Reagan Quote when he said that liberals weren’t ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t true.

  10. Med Bennett says:

    That was great, the perfect debunking of liberal climate hysteria. I’m engaged in the same arguments every day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s