Monday, February 8, 2016

Mark Levin the self-proclaimed constitutional scholar and historian who has been on a rant lately attacking the “kooks” and “goofballs” who dare question the citizenship status of Senator Rafael “Ted” Cruz has revealed himself to be an unabashed Cruz partisan, willing to go to any lengths to propagate the “Cruz is Eligible to be POTUS” lie.

-       Part One
By Gary Wilmott
February 8, 2016

Mark Levin the self-proclaimed constitutional scholar and historian who has been on a rant lately attacking the “kooks” and “goofballs” who dare question the citizenship status of Senator Rafael “Ted” Cruz has revealed himself to be an unabashed Cruz partisan, willing to go to any lengths to propagate the “Cruz is Eligible to be POTUS” lie.

The breath-taking arrogance of Levin on this issue and his repeated attempts to contort the Constitution, conflate the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” and “Citizen,” avoid the intent of the Framers and diminish the purpose and plain meaning of the presidential eligibility clause shows that either Levin’s constitutional expertise is not what he purports it to be or that he has chosen to purposely misinform and mislead the millions of listeners who hang on his every word.

Back in August of 2013, Levin who runs his radio program in the manner of a “tin-pot dictator” first waded into the Cruz eligibility issue by stating unequivocally that he was “…so sick of those birthers” thereby relating an incident where an individual confronted him at one of Levin’s incessant book signings saying: “…that Cruz was ineligible to be POTUS; that Cruz was not a Natural Born Citizen”.
Levin further commented about the incident as follows:
(In fact you can listen yourself to the entire segment here: )

Levin mockingly: …”But he’s (Cruz) born of a mother who is an American citizen. Doesn’t it make him a Natural Born Citizen?”

I don’t know Mark…you’re the constitutional expert.  You tell me.

Levin mimicking his confronter:  “Nah…but he was in Canada when he was born!"
Then in an attempt to keep his listeners in line, Levin continued on: “Ok but she wasn’t Canadian…she was an American citizen!  And so the issue isn’t what the Constitution says in that regard…the issue is how we interpret that.  And the way I interpret is that his (Cruz) mother is an American citizen so he’s an American citizen. That’s not a constitutional issue.”

Note that Levin merely states that Cruz is an American citizen.  He doesn’t say that Cruz is a Natural Born American Citizen which is the exceptional standard of citizenship constitutionally (Article 2, Sec 1, Clause 5) required for POTUS and commander-in-chief of the military.  Instead Levin purposely conflates the two terms; effectively bamboozling his audience as he plays to the ignorance of most Americans and their unfortunate widespread misconception that the POTUS need only be an ordinary citizen to be eligible. 

This cynical effort by media whores like Levin, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and others to diminish the purpose and meaning of Natural Born Citizen has been enthusiastically aided by a complicit and irresponsible left-leaning media and a dysfunctional educational system that has worked tirelessly for the past fifty years or so to denigrate the Constitution and our founding principles. The result has made our kids think they’re citizens of the world instead of being proud of America as an exceptional country with a rich and noble history.

The crux of Levin’s “Cruz is Eligible” argument is that anyone born abroad to just one American citizen parent is an American citizen and thus eligible to be POTUS.  Just common sense would tell you that is a ridiculous notion.  Under that rubric alone, Sir Winston Churchill (born in England to an American mother) was eligible to run for POTUS; a fact that Churchill himself dismissed as patently unconstitutional.

Levin further reveals his ignorance or perhaps it’s just simple lack of forethought by blurting out “…Cruz’s mother is an American citizen and he’s (Cruz) an American citizen!  It’s not a constitutional issue.”  

Really Mark? Not a constitutional issue? Are you kidding me? We’re talking about presidential eligibility! Obviously it is a constitutional issue because we are trying to determine whether Rafael “Ted” Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen pursuant to Art 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States and thus eligible to be POTUS and commander-in-chief of the United States military. Geeeeez, I would say that it is absolutely a fundamental constitutional issue!  Does Levin actually listen to what he is saying?

Levin rails on: That’s an interpretative issue… or a statutory issue if Congress has passed some laws subsequent to that to enforce that provision of the Constitution.  So the face of the Constitution isn’t terribly helpful.  In my view there is no doubt about it that he (Cruz) is eligible to be POTUS if he chooses to run. That’s my OPINION.”

Levin has completely lost it here. Levin talks about statutes or laws passed to enforce the (eligibility) provision of the Constitution.  Excuse me? Congress doesn’t enforce the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the land and is enforced by the Federal Courts, headed by the Supreme Court!  Where pray tell me “Oh Great One” has Congress passed laws to enforce the presidential eligibility clause?  And then he concludes his argument by stating that it’s just his OPINION!  Wait…I thought Levin was weighing in as the expert?

Does this really sound like a constitutional expert? What is Levin trying to say? Interpret what? The subsequent laws re: citizenship enacted by Congress speak for themselves. The subsequent court cases that deal with citizenship also speak for themselves. The evolution of citizenship law in the United States is well documented and is readily available to be reviewed, discussed, and debated by anyone.

Note that I did not say that citizenship law as it relates to the term NATURAL Born Citizen had evolved.  It hasn’t. Never has. The meaning of NBC has never changed and no statutes passed by Congress under Article 1 Section 8 has ever attempted to invoke the term or even redefine the term with the exception of the 1790 Naturalization law repealed in 1795.  Congress has absolutely no power to do so.

Would it have been too much to ask that Mark Levin look at the actual naturalization statutes and Supreme Court opinions on this issue so as to objectively discern the facts and the truth?  Had he done so he would have seen that the congressional statutes related to citizenship have no bearing on the original meaning and intent of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and that all of the subsequent naturalization statutes enacted by Congress since 1789 deal precisely with congresses’ enumerated power to “…establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization…”. That’s it.  

Let me provide the “Great One” some guidance.  Levin should have begun with the writings of the Framers and delved seriously into the rationale behind the term Natural Born Citizen; its intent and true meaning.  Had he done his due diligence he would have discovered that the “Natural Born Citizen” clause first appeared in the draft Constitution after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States. Jay's letter provided: "[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).
Seems like an extremely reasonable and sensible concept; the framers wanted to “tighten up” the citizenship requirement for POTUS to insure the steadfast/unquestionable loyalty of a President against foreign influences - a loyalty based upon the conditions of a prospective President's birth.

And the last time I looked, Cruz had been a Canadian citizen for 43 years of his 45 years alive on this earth and was born to a Cuban born naturalized Canadian father.  It’s also possible that Cruz has some legal claim to Cuban citizenship too.  Seems to me there is some foreign association/influence here. What am I missing?  Couple that with the fact that Ted Cruz has yet to offer any proof whatsoever that he is even an American citizen and you have to wonder what Cruz is hiding.  

Since the Cruz camp has refused to offer any documentation other than his Canadian birth certificate and his mother’s American birth certificate how does anyone know (including Mark Levin) that Cruz has ever been an American citizen?  And how do we know that Ted’s mommy was NOT a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth in 1970?   As of this writing all FOIA requests for corroborating documentation have been denied for privacy reasons!  Really?  So just because Obama got away with it in 2008 and 2012 does that mean we have to accept a steady stream of ineligible candidates who refuse to provide their bona fides? I don’t think so.

Before pontificating on presidential eligibility, Levin and for that matter any other person serious in understanding the Constitution and the presidential eligibility clause should have taken time to objectively examine and review the enumerable statutes and Supreme Court cases re: citizenship.  I submit that the answers to this entire eligibility issue can be gleaned in the rich history of U.S. citizenship law.  It’s all there; clear and unambiguous:

The First Naturalization Law 1790 (1 Sta.103) repealed in 1795; The Citizenship Act of 1795; The Citizenship Act of 1802; The Citizenship Act of 1855; Dred Scott v Sanford 1857; The 14th Amendment 1868; The revised Statutes of 1878; United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649 (1898); The Citizenship Act of 1907;  Cable Act of 1922;  Weedin v. Chin Bow (274 U.S.  657 (1927));  The Citizenship Act of 1934;  Perkins v. Elg (307 U.S. 325 (1939); The Nationality Act of 1940;  Savorgnan v. United States et al (338 U.S. 49 (January 9, 1950));  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952;  Kawakita v. United States (343 U.S. 717 (1952));  Mandoli v. Acheson (344 U.S. 133 (1952));  The Citizenship Act of March 16, 1956; The Citizenship Act of September 11, 1957 (71 Stat. 644);  Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961));  Schneider v. Rusk (377 U.S. 163 (1964); The Citizenship Act of 1966;  Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S.  at 263);  Rogers v. Bellei (April 19781: 401 U.S. 815 (1971));  The Citizenship Act of 1972; The “Overseas American Children’s Equity Act of 1987”;  The “Overseas American Children’s Equity Act of 1989”;  The “Overseas American Children’s Equity Act of 1991”;  The “Overseas American Children’s Equity Act of 1992”;  The “New Overseas American Children’s Equity Act of 1992”;  The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994;  Miller v. Albright (1998);  U.S. v. Ahumada Aguilar (189 F.3d 1121 (1999);  The Child Citizenship Act of 2000;  Nguyen v. Ins (533 U.S. 53 (2001);  The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (2002);  Overseas Naturalization Procedures For Children of  a U.S. Military Parent (2008);  and Flores-Villar v. United States (No. 09-5801 (2011)).

If Levin had endeavored to do some honest and objective research, he wouldn’t have had to offer his opinion. He could have stated unequivocally – convincingly as a true constitutional scholar - that Cruz, was in fact, NOT a Natural Born Citizen by simply examining the facts and applying the law.  That’s what good attorneys do.  Had he done so, Levin could have reported accurately to his listeners that Cruz could only have acquired American citizenship through his mother pursuant to statutory law, i.e., NATURALIZATION.  And we all know that a Naturalized citizen is not and can never be a Natural Born citizen.

In fact, prior to 1934 Ted Cruz could never have been an American citizen under the same facts as his actual 1970 birth scenario!  That is because citizenship passed only through the FATHER!  So what changed? The Constitution had not changed. The meaning and definition of Natural Born Citizen had not changed.  What changed was the enactment of the Citizenship Act of 1934 which now allowed an American mother to pass her citizenship to her foreign born child but with specific contingencies, i.e., residency requirements attached that MUST be met in order to perfect citizenship for the child.  This is a fact that Levin conveniently ignores and fails to report to his fawning listenership. Has anyone else in the media reported this fact?  Why is that?

If Levin had done his due diligence he would have also learned that many of the laws governing citizenship require the applicant to prove that a parent has spent periods of time physically present in the U.S. These are requirements for the “transmission” of citizenship from parent to child. In these cases, the transmission law that was in effect at the time of child’s birth controls. A Natural Born Citizen by definition does not have to fulfill any such residency requirements. In fact a NBC does not rely on any positive law, i.e., man-made statues for status.

Just being a citizen is not the same as Natural Born Citizen.  Remember that the Founders included the adjective “Natural” to precede the word “Citizen” for the qualification of the president only.  Other members of the government could have birth-right citizenship or be naturalized citizens. They did not need to meet the higher standard of NBC (for POTUS only).  But for Levin and his presidential candidate of choice, Cruz, one American citizen parent conveniently is sufficient; a rather absurd concept to say the least given the actual intent of the Framers, the actual Supreme Court opinions on the issue and the extensive history of naturalization laws enacted by Congress.

Since Mark Levin now proclaims that you need ONLY one citizen parent to be a NBC where does that leave poor Marco Rubio? Obviously he can't be a NBC because BOTH of his parents were Cuban citizens at the time of his birth.  Or is it Mark Levin’s position that Rubio is sitting pretty as a simple birth-right citizen (14th Amendment) having been born in Florida? Well if that’s the case we all know that terrorist Anwar al-Awaki born in New Mexico to Yemeni citizen parents would also be eligible to run for POTUS.  Yeah right.  Just what the Framers envisioned.
So okay when all is said and done, Levin, the so-called constitutional expert concludes by saying it’s just his opinion.  So he says.  Well if it’s his opinion it’s definitely one founded in ignorance and/or sloppy research (assuming Levin researched the issue at all) or is it purposeful manipulation of the truth?  I wonder.

In September of 2013 the “Not So Great Levin” weighs in again.

You can listen for yourself at:

If you listen to the audio from this broadcast Levin completely misrepresents the facts. He demagogues the issue dripping with sarcasm and posturing as the omnipotent authority on the Constitution allowing no dissent whatsoever from his listeners.  Absolutely no one is allowed to call in and challenge his specious presentation.  

What follows is a phony narrative to support his favorite candidate (Cruz).  It's patently dishonest and irresponsible but you can be assured that millions of listeners will lap up his words as the gospel.  

At the very beginning of the clip Levin makes an absolute fool of himself:  “You know Ted Cruz Mr. Producer?... senator from Texas…he’s an American citizen!  A NATURALIZED American citizen! He can run for president of the United States...oh it’s true. It’s true!"

Did you catch that? Well Mark you are right about the fact that Cruz is a NATURALIZED American citizen. Problem is that a NATURALIZED citizen can NEVER be POTUS.  Ooooops. Sorry Mark but that was a big screw-up.  Some constitutional expert.

Levin then begins to read an article from the Cato Institute written by Ilya Shapiro entitled: “YES TED CRUZ CAN BE PRESIDENT”.
Note: This article appeared in the Daily Caller on August 26, 2013 (Text of the Shapiro article is in BOLD).  Levin has also referred to this same article earlier this year (Jan. 2016).

Levin:  As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada."

Levin: Oh my God!”

Levin continues to read: But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?

[Note: We birthers have found more proof that Obama was born outside of the USA than within. Levin conveniently distills the birther issue into one of simple birthplace and a kooky insistence that all birthers maintain that Obama was born in Kenya.  Levin purposely refuses to address all of the constitutional aspects affecting eligibility and by the way where is his research and follow-up re: Obama’s forged identity documents? But I digress.]

Levin: "No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. You see the Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly."

"So what’s a “natural born citizen”? [Levin adds:  Well may I add – it’s not in the article - this seems like every jerk with access to Google has decided what natural born citizen is and they insist that everybody agree with them] "But the Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts."

Levin: "OMG! It’s true."

Well let’s stop and analyze what Levin has read on air and implicitly endorsed.

But first some background. The First United States Congress mentioned in the article, met from March 4, 1789, to March 4, 1791, during the first two years of George Washington's presidency.  With the initial meeting of the First Congress, the United States federal government officially began operations under the new (and current) frame of government established by the 1787 Constitution.  The only statute re: citizenship was the original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) which set out the rules in the granting of national citizenship. The 1790 statute limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character excluding American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." It specifies that such children "shall be considered as natural born citizens," the only US statute ever to use the term.

By attempting to declare persons born out of the United States to “be considered as natural born citizens,” Congress acted illegally in giving to itself powers to define a natural born citizen which it did not have under the Constitution.  Another problem with the Naturalization Act of 1790 was that, if Congress did not intend to expand who could be a natural born citizen, it actually created confusion as to whether children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were under the Constitution eligible to be President since the statute did say that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizens “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” 

In order to avoid any constitutional problem and to make matters clear, the Third Congress in 1795, with the leadership of then-Representative James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the Act of 1790, and changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Clearly the Third Congress realized the error of their ways. The Naturalization Act of 1795 made it clear that there was to be no confusion or doubt that those children were not natural born citizens.  This purposeful change in language made it clear these foreign-born children were merely citizens of the United States and not natural born citizens. 

Attorney Mario Apuzzo, who has researched this issue thoroughly and written so many authoritative essays on the subject - and who I might add could run circles around Levin on this issue - has said this about the 1790 Act: “Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.”

Apuzzo goes on: “Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born. For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance. Just imagine the Framers allowing a child born in Great Britain to two U.S. citizen parents (a perpetual natural born subject under English common law) after the adoption of the Constitution (post Article II grandfather time period) to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.”

So why does Levin blindly read an article on air that refers to an obsolete statute enacted by the First Congress that has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand? Really it’s embarrassing.

As for the contention that the Supreme Court confirmed the definition of Natural Born Citizen as meaning birth abroad to American parents – in a manner regulated by federal law – and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship!  That’s patently false.  Levin how about providing the specific Supreme Court cases that confirmed this definition? You can’t. Because it never happened! And yet you blindly read this crap on air.  Some expert. By the way did you notice that the “Great One” didn’t catch the fact that the author wrote and Levin robotically (makes me think of Rubio LOL) read out loud: “…birth abroad to American parents.” Parents plural.  Cruz only had ONE purported American citizen parent (his mother) at the time of his birth.  Oooops.

Levin continues reading: "There’s no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former Solicitor General Ted Olson — who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases — co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain’s eligibility. Recall that McCain — lately one of Cruz’s chief antagonists — was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone."

Levin injects:  In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president.”

"So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. And that’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere [Levin: “That would be people from Mars I think.” ] — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here."

Well let’s analyze again what Levin just read.

Once again Levin blindly reads the article out loud to his listeners and reference is made to the Nationality Act of 1940. The 1940 Act revised "the existing nationality laws of the U.S. into a more complete nationality code"; it defined those persons who were "eligible for citizenship through birth or naturalization" and clarified "the status of individuals and their children born or residing in the continental U.S., its territories such as Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Panama and the Canal Zone, or abroad." The law furthermore defined who was not eligible for citizenship, and how citizenship could be lost or terminated.

And guess what? The 1940 Act was REPEALED and superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952! So why is Levin talking about a statute that has been repealed?  And another minor detail is the fact that the Act does not address Natural Born Citizenship at all; a fact that is conveniently omitted so that Levin can imply that the term is the same as citizen at birth. More deceit and misinformation directed at Levin’s tail-wagging audience.

Levin continues reading: "That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, [Levin: “Is Delaware a part of America? I think so.”] lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s."

Notice that Levin is referring to naturalization statutes and the various residency requirements attached.  Those residency requirements must be met in order for the foreign born child to acquire citizenship from their parent or parents. Just ordinary citizenship obviously pursuant to the relevant statute.  These statutes do not confer natural born citizenship.  Once again there is a purposeful attempt by the author and Levin to conflate the two terms.  The statement: “…in order to be considered a natural-born citizen” is a lie!  Since when does a NBC have to conform to various residency requirements? Levin says that meeting these various requirements makes the child a NBC. Ludicrous.

Levin again: "So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen?" [Levin conveniently doesn’t read the rest of the article about Obama which says: Obama because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)]

Here we have more lies and misrepresentations and misdirection to be lapped up by the listeners.  

Levin asks “…why the brouhaha about where Obama was born because "there is no dispute as to his mother Ann Dunham being a citizen." 

The inference being that Cruz is obviously eligible because we know his mother was born in America. Well I will tell you why Levin....because Obama’s purported mother was UNDER AGE to confer citizenship to baby Barry under existing US naturalization and immigration law in 1961. The very naturalization laws you conveniently use to argue Natural Born Citizenship for Cruz also applies to Obama! And I might add that’s assuming that Barry was born in 1961 and that Ann Stanley Dunham was in fact his mother!  Facts which have never been proven.

So that's why the brouhaha Great One! 

Then there is the inconvenient truth that there is no proof of where Obama was physically born. The birth certificate is a forgery but when has Levin ever shown any interest in researching that?

Levin picks up: "In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn’t be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain — and could’ve said about Obama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater — Cruz “is certainly not the hypothetical ‘foreigner’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”

Levin then drops the subject offering no explanation as to how the author has been able to discern those foreigners that John Jay and George Washington were concerned about. How funny is that?

Levin goes on: “His (Cruz) eligibility shouldn’t be in doubt?”

Levin you’re a joke. Some expert. Actually Levin is not the Great One.  Levin is the Great Pretender.

As for Cruz not being the hypothetical “foreigner” who John Jay and George Washington were concerned about…are you serious Levin?  The way I see it you are either one or the other - either an American or a foreigner. But according to the author and by implication they apparently have exceptions for certain citizens.  Canadian is ok.  How about Italian? Russian? Chinese? Iranian? Indian? Moroccan? Who are these hypothetical foreigners that Jay and Washington were concerned with? Apparently the author has been able to personally channel this information from Jay (d. 1829) and Washington (d. 1799) and can definitively reassure us that Cruz does not fall into that nefarious category they were so concerned about. Apparently Mark agrees.

The fact is that I would argue that Cruz and Obama epitomize precisely those individuals with foreign interests and backgrounds that the Founding Fathers absolutely did NOT want to become POTUS. Come on Mark...Cruz was born a native born Canadian and a natural born Cuban and he's your guy for POTUS and commander in chief of the U.S. military? I mean really Mark. How stupid can you be?

Levin again (exasperated): And actually I could have added to this piece (the article he just finished reading on air). If you look at the 1790 Naturalization Act…Cruz would qualify under the 1790 Naturalization Act and there were a lot of Founding Fathers involved in that Act. The Act of the First Congress. So can we cut it out? No. People don’t want to cut it out. Bother Hannity. Leave me alone.”

Can you believe this? Levin throws in his two cents about the 1790 Naturalization Act!  Cruz absolutely would not qualify!  Earth to Mark…Hey Levin the Act was repealed! It was replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act.  This is deliberate misinformation and deceit.

 Is this guy a big DOPE or what?

Typically Levin (ever the coward) finally wraps up with this:

“Mr. Call Screener no calls on this issue. I’m just not interested. This issue bores me. I’m raising this [issue] to address and knock it down. Done with it. Hopefully to never again to be spoken again on the Mark Levin Show.”

Well Levin does address the issue again. Part Two Coming soon.

Watch for PART TWO February 18 at:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.