I am not wrong. The founding fathers were very clear about the preisdent having to be a natural born citizen of the United States. They also made the definition very clear, a person who's parent, both parents, are U. S. citizen at the time of that person's brith with no dual citizenship with any other nation. Very simple but clear definition.

O-bomb-a did not meet this standard. His father has NEVER been a U. S. citizen and he has dual citizenship with Kenya thanks to his father. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, his father was a immigrant from Cuba that became a Canadian citizen through naturalization. Cruz's mother was an American citizen so he had dual citizenship, something he had to renounce in order to even serve in the senate so that dual citizenship is not at all in question. Therefore he is not a natural born U. S. citizen even though his father did, much later on, become a naturalized U. S. citizen that happened far too late fro Cruz to even begin trying to claim he is a natural born citizen.

What is wrong are the corrupt politician committing treason, and the ignorant citizenship that simply does not care because they are too stupid to know better, or too worried about their favorite sports team, and what is happening on the next episode of Dancing with the Stars or some other idiotic television show. The results of government controlled education.

@KCSantiago History and the laws prove you wrong.

@Lightman What laws?

@Lightman All hisotry proves is how corrupt our politicians are and how ignorant our citizenry is

I am not sure about now, but before entering politics he was a lawyer. He spent most of that career working for a single company, a tech giant out of China. THis company got most of it's advances stealing the work of U. S. techies that were up and coming. Cruz's job was to drown all the lawsuits against this company in American courts in legal actions that kept things tied up for years until the small guy in this country went bankrupt and the Chinese comapny got to keep it's gotten technology.

@KCSantiago Reminds me of what someone said: There are three reasons why lawyers are replacing rats as laboratory research animals. One is that they’re plentiful, another is that lab assistants don’t get attached to them, and the third is that there are some things rats just - won’t do.

In other words if we didn't have lawyers , we would not need lawyers.

@Krunoslav I had a socialist cousin who decided to become lawyer. I was always asking him, "Why do research scientists like lawyers over rats?" I especially loved asking that in front of his wife who was another socialist lawyer, and feminist to boot. My cousin knew I was just razzing him, we did this to each other all the time, the Mrs would always get very angry and hit me with those eyes that wanted to kill with her glare.