Birther Coulter Births More Lies

Erstwhile anti-birther Ann Coulter, worshiping at the idol of The Donald, has become the premiere birther attacking Ted Cruz. Why? She wants to scuttle Cruz’s presidential ambitions and stop his burgeoning support before her own Savior, Trump, loses the nomination.

Birther Ann Coulter

(Coulter has, after all, tied her future – and that of America[1]to a Trump victory,[2] however wise or foolish that might be.)

Just two days ago, Coulter burst out, “Thank God for raising up Donald Trump and giving us a chance to save the country.”[3]

It’s Really Not About Ted, But All About Ann

Seemingly on emotional steroids, Coulter has turned her attack dog persona on Trump’s most formidable Republican foe, all the while professing an “Ah, shucks, I don’t want to do this, but it’s the right thing to do” attitude even has she sticks a shiv in Ted’s side.

Coulter dodges claims that she changed position on Cruz’s eligibility solely to support Trump by asserting she took her current position prior to Trump’s candidacy. That is a red herring.

Just yesterday, Coulter wrote: “I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy.”[4] Coulter claims, “It’s not that I want him not to be a Natural Born Citizen.”[5] Except, Coulter’s later claim is patently false and demonstrably untrue.

In reality, Coulter was obsessed with recruiting Romney for president, so much so that her close friend, Sean Hannity, was aghast at the depth of her obsession. Ted Cruz was becoming an impediment to Coulter’s plans for Romney.

Coulter first sought to disqualify Cruz as a presidential contender to force her idol, Mitt Romney, to run again[6] in 2016. At that time, she wanted Romney – and only Romney![7]

Now, she wants Trump – and only Trump![8]

In fact, just three days ago, Coulter boasted that she still wants a Trump-Romney ticket: “In fact, my ideal ticket is Trump-Romney. That’s what I’m really hoping for. That’s the dynamite combo.”[9]

Bob Woodward recently said, “History is character; behavior is character.”[10] Coulter’s history, and her behavior these past two decades, proves Coulter’s own lack of character.[11] Coulter lied about the Constitution and Supreme Court cases during the 2000 election[12] and she is doing the same thing now.

Why would Ann lie? Donald Trump[13] is her new political savior.[14] In Ann’s words: “[Donald Trump is] America’s savior.”[15]

Nevertheless, Coulter hypocritically attacks those who correctly interpret the Constitution, lamenting, “It’s kind of annoying me that we are all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now and people interpret the Constitution based on what they want the Constitution to say, not what it does say.”[16]

1608 or 1790; Blood or Soil?

According to Coulter, “In the U.S., also in Great Britain and in France, citizenship is determined by soil. … Congress can write laws for naturalization. That is also in the Constitution. But if Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not natural born. … It is determined by a law written by Congress; not by the common law, not by the Constitution. So that is not natural born.”[17]

Except, the law written by Congress (and empowered by the Constitution) establishes who is natural born! In 1790, Congress established citizenship by blood.

Coulter asserts: “The phrase ‘natural born’ is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin – a Scot – could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.”[18]

The case which Coulter cites – Calvin’s Case (1608) – has to do with English subjects, not citizens. Americans are not subjects. Our Founders took those portions of English common law with which they agreed and modified or dispensed with those portions which were incongruent with the new American constitutional system that they were creating.

Chief Justice Joseph Story wrote, in an 1829 Supreme Court opinion: “The common law of England is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted, only that portion which was applicable to their situation.”

Coulter claims that a 1608 case in England is the basis for America’s definition of Natural Born Citizen.[19] Consequently, Coulter asserts that the 1790 law enacted by Congress is irrelevant. Does Coulter seriously believe that a 1790 American law enacted by the Founders is nullified by an English case law from 1608? Really?

According to the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities (emphasis added), “In Britain, even before Calvin’s Case, various acts and proclamations provided that a child born out of the territory of England could also be a natural-born subject, as long as the child’s parents owed allegiance to the sovereign of England. This is an example of the jus sanguinis [blood] operating alongside the jus soli [soil]. In the history of both Britain and the United States, the jus sanguinis has always been established by statute, never by judge-made law.

The 1790 statute by Congress, which Coulter dismisses as “irrelevant,” precisely establishes the principle of right of blood which Coulter denies!

The Congressional Research Service published its findings on this issue (emphasis added):

“From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term ‘natural born’ in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).”

Cleverly, Coulter very subtly suggests that those defending citizenship by blood are nascent Nazis, saying, “The two methods are soil or blood. Curiously, in Germany, it’s, it’s blood.”[20]

Coulter Lies About ANOTHER Supreme Court Case

Coulter writes: “As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: ‘It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.’”[21]

Coulter uses this case to prove her contention that Cruz is ineligible, when, in fact, it proves the opposite!

As noted in ROGERS v. BELLEI, (1971) (emphasis added):

“Section 301 (a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a), defines those persons who ‘shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.’ Paragraph (7) of 301 (a) includes in that definition a person born abroad ‘of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States’ who has met specified conditions of residence in this country.”

The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.”

“The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’ by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated, ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.’” [Subsequent statutes extended it to either a citizen mother or citizen father.]

Cruz Is Eligible!

Gary DeMar is perhaps the foremost expert on America’s Founders. DeMar recently offered a history of originalist thought on Natural Born Citizen and reached this stunning conclusion: “Ted Cruz [is] more of an American than some of the drafters of the Constitution.”

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[2]               See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[3]               Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 1/12/16.

[4]               Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

[5]               Ann Coulter, Hardball, MSNBC, 1/11/16.

[6]               See “Coulter Stumps for Romney – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4V.

[7]               See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[8]               See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[9]               Ann Coulter, Hardball, MSNBC, 1/11/16.

[10]             Bob Woodward, Fox News Sunday, FNC, 1/10/16.

[11]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[12]             See “Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bE.

[13]             See “Coulter Trumped Up” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7Q.

[14]             See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[15]             Ann Coulter, Peter Tilden Show, KABC, 8/28/15.

[16]             Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 1/12/16.

[17]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[18]             Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

[19]             Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 1/12/16.

[20]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[21]             Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s