I had the nauseating experience of getting to listen to a birther exchange between Ann Coulter and Geraldo Rivera. What sickened me most was not that they were wrong because my personal belief is that they were on the money. I was much more bothered that we have a potentially illegal president in The White House and Geraldo and Ann have already shifted their focus to 2016 and Ted Cruz.

Doesn't that bother you? If you want to argue birther issues then let's focus on the man that still has plenty of questions to answer. The media and government officials are not stupid. Every single one of them know about Mike Zullo's affidavit. It is their job to know. Yet, everyone keeps avoiding the discussion and acting stupid.

So, by all means, let's move on to Ted Cruz, a man who doesn't even know if he wants to run for president in 2016.

I would just once like to hear someone bring up the argument that a lot of Americans have been waiting for. Ted Cruz' father was not an American citizen when he was born. Neither was Barack Obama's. I think this alone might have been enough to disqualify Obama and Cruz in the future, but no one talks about that.

The interpretation of "natural born citizen" has changed over the years. We had a president named Chester Arthur who went to great lengths to hide the fact that his father was NOT an American citizen. Why did he hide that? Because, more than likely, Chester Arthur knew that this would make him ineligible to become president.

The problem is that "natural born citizen" is not defined in the constitution. Since it is not, our legislators will simply continue to attach whatever definition is convenient.

There are at least two legally binding documents that support the idea that both parents need to be American citizens. The first is from 1790 and our first Congress.

 
 

This is the only graphic I have but I want you to notice that the highlighted portion is talking about "natural born citizens" after shifting from the definition of regular citizens. There is a difference. We cannot confuse "naturalized" with "natural born."

The first congress did set forth provisions for birth outside of our borders but notice that there was no provision made for only one parent being a citizen. An 1875 Supreme Court Ruling did not offer the same opinion on birth abroad but reinforced the idea that both parents should be American citizens.

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).

Anyone who wants to explore Supreme Court references should check this out. I am not what you would call a "rabid" birther, or an expert, so I am always looking for info to understand the subject matter more completely.

Either way, I think it speaks volumes for where our country is headed when a couple of so-called "conservative" journalists are more concerned with Ted Cruz than the current potential fraud residing in The White House.

I suppose that Ted Cruz will be deemed eligible because I don't think that the laws of the land matter much anymore. It will probably boil down to politics. I would be inclined to agree with Geraldo and Ann that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president and that there needs to be a ruling.

Regardless of where the actual interpretation of the law currently stands, it is pretty much commonly accepted that the "natural born citizen" clause was put in place to avoid having a president with displaced loyalties. Would Ted Cruz have displaced loyalties? I don't think so. His father fought hard to escape oppression and values his freedom.

Obama's Dad? He was a known communist and anti-colonialist. There might just be a tad of "displaced loyalty" there depending on how much of that hatred Barack Jr. carries with him. If you judge by his actions, there would seem to be a lot of hatred toward the America that I know and love.

I can't believe I am even having this conversation about Ted Cruz when we have this man in The White House who is more than likely not a legal president.

Where are the conservative journalists who are supposed to be talking about that?

If my interpretation of Obama's eligibility ends up being wrong then so be it. But at least act like you care about the issue because a lot of your viewers and listeners do.

The truth is that we will be lucky to have a 2016 election at the rate things are regressing. I'd like to see a little respect from the small segment of the media who claims to be on our side.

How dare you start talking about Ted Cruz when we have not even had the chance to vet the history and eligibility of Barack Obama.

I like Ann Coulter and normally enjoy her takes. Geraldo always manages to rub me the wrong way. In this case I am not happy with either of them. As far as I'm concerned they may as well be liberals because this is blatant hypocrisy.

Why does the media continue to cover for this President?

We want the truth and we deserve it.

Editor's Note: One of the best articles on what it means to be a "Natural Born Citizen" was written by our own Publius Huldah. Instead of fiddling with modern day court cases, she returns to the time of the Founders and the Constitution to see how they understood the term. I think you'll find it enlightening. You can read her article by clicking here.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.