I knew
yesterday's column on Cruz's "natural born" eligibility would be like poking a hornet's nest. Based on
Facebook reactions and nested replies, it was. My first thought: Too bad such animated discussions aren't happening in comments under the article itself, where more people can read them (and for the record, I do not get page view compensation like at Examiner, so I don't have a "click bait" motive).
I also see I was right about two things: We can't count on the controversy just going away and some will react with strongly-vested emotions. One person made a point of telling me he "unfriended" me -- if others did as well and just didn't say anything, I don't know or care. I don't make a point of soliciting "friends." As I use social media as a platform for sharing my links, I only respond to friend requests and group invitations, I don't initiate them -- that way, no one can say I asked to be let in and then started spamming.
A few points I'd like to respond to:
I didn't write the article because I'm in the tank for Trump. I've made no endorsement and have written plenty of things criticizing him over the years. My main interest in him: He's brought issues to the fore that people like me want solutions for and that the establishment squishes would prefer to just throw out a few weasel words over and then stay the course they're on.
I understand there are plenty of people of note who have written documented defenses of Cruz's eligibility and there have been court cases siding with that opinion. I specifically acknowledged that in the article. It's the fact that there
are opposing views, many passionate and many citing varied authorities, that makes me believe further court challenges aren't unlikely, depending on how close the race looks to be and if the opposition is desperate enough to play that card. I think to say that a new legal complaint
won't happen is as unsupportable as predicting the outcome if more do get filed. Rulings get challenged and overturned all the time -- that's why we have appeals courts.
A seemingly minor point, one I thought about addressing in the article (but didn't want to go too far off into the weeds) -- one person pointed out that the Prince Hashim analogy in the column photo was not accurate because his mother gave up her citizenship. Again, there are conflicting accounts of this, but per
Time's Swampland blog, Queen Noor, “says she automatically lost her U.S. citizenship but never renounced it.” Doing so formally would be a requirement to "legally" give it up.
And that brings me to my main point, one I've repeated a few times on this blog: If Cruz has sealed his records, why won't he just unseal them? What's the big secret? That would dispel speculation that his mother renounced her citizenship and more -- or else it would add a whole new level of complexity to the legal arguments. Isn't that something we all deserve to know? Why would any of his defenders who are interested in the truth be against that?
If you'd like to add your two cents, I request you do so under the column itself. And if you don't care what I request and would prefer I just go to hell, take a number and get in line.
