Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Illinois Bd of Elections: Ted Cruz is “natural born Citizen” and eligible for ballot

Illinois Bd of Elections: Ted Cruz is “natural born Citizen” and eligible for ballot

Expect Trump to keep pushing the issue.

In all the news noise over the Iowa caucuses, a decision by the Illinois Board of Elections passed almost entirely under the radar.

There was much hoopla when two voters filed a challenge to Ted Cruz appearing on the ballot because Cruz allegedly was not a “natural born Citizen” and ineligible. (My research and conclusions on the subject are here.)

I have not been able to find the actual decision, but Huffington Post reports:

Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz’s presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.

Adopting the recommendations of a hearing officer who considered the matter last week, the board of elections on Monday rejected both objections, ruled Cruz eligible and ordered that his name be certified for the election.

“The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said, reasoning that Cruz met the criteria because he “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”

The lawyers also pointed to the valid candidacies of two former Republican hopefuls, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Michigan Gov. George Romney, as examples of presidential runs that received the blessing of Congress, courts and other means to proceed, despite the fact that both men were born abroad and raised eligibility questions.

These and other sources of authority, the lawyers said, “all command the same conclusion” that Cruz complies with the “natural born” requirement.

It’s unclear if this is the end of the challenge. Some reports indicate the challengers are not planning to go to court, but this local news report indicates it’s uncertain:

William K. Graham of Glen Ellyn said late Tuesday night there’s “no decision yet,” but he’s considering a court challenge since Cruz was born in Canada.

Another Illinoisan who filed an objection with the board of elections is Lawrence Joyce. He tells News 3 he doesn’t have the legal expertise or resources to go to court after the state board ruled against his challenge. But he doesn’t think board members in Chicago and Springfield, who were linked via video conference during a hearing on the issue, seriously considered the legal arguments against Cruz.

“I paused after each time that I spoke,” said Joyce. “Nobody at either site on the board had any comment to make or asked any question.”

WSIL-TV 3 Southern Illinois

The Washington Examiner reports that a New Hampshire panel reached a similar conclusion:

A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”

Prof. Sarah Hoyt at Instapundit notes I WAS SURPRISED HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVED THE DONALD OVER THIS.

I’m not. It’s all about demagoguery, and Demagogue in Chief Ann Coulter is still at it:

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/694368632613310464

Expect Trump to resume the attack on Cruz over eligibility.

When he’s not demanding a do-over in Iowa:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/694890328273346560

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

legacyrepublican | February 3, 2016 at 1:06 pm

Cruz might have been born in Canada, but he was born again in the good old USA.

Wow. Duh Donald has gone full-whiney Al Gore in defeat.

Pitiful, but predictable. The man-child narcissist in full tantrum.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    He wants a do-over, like any other petulant, spoiled child who didn’t get his way.

      You know who asks for do-overs? LOSERS. Losers ask for do-overs. Donald tRump is a loser. Donald tRump is demanding the Iowa Caucuses be re-done because of “fraud.” Presumably getting his ass handed to him once just felt so good that he’d like to repeat the experience.

    Mr. Izz in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Hmm, do you even know why Trump is upset? I’ll give you a clue though, Carson is even more upset. Cruz and his supporters came out and said Carson had suspended his campaign. As such, these supporters pushed that Carson voters should vote for Cruz.

    Personally, I’m not sure I care who wins on the GOP side, but this reeks to high heaven as very unethical. In my opinion, every candidate on the GOP side should be very upset with Cruz. So go ahead and bash Trump for being upset/whiny, but what happened just wasn’t right. And guess what? In true government fashion, no one will be held responsible or accountable. Isn’t that wonderful? Transparency at its finest.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mr. Izz. | February 3, 2016 at 1:29 pm

      I know more than you, Condescendo.

      And, yeah, I know why T-rump is upset.

      He lost. He’s a loser. And after all that selling out he did to the Iowa cronies!

      Sanddog in reply to Mr. Izz. | February 3, 2016 at 1:38 pm

      I wonder why no one is upset at CNN for reporting that Carson was leaving Iowa, returning to FL and not going to NH or SC.

        Ragspierre in reply to Sanddog. | February 3, 2016 at 1:51 pm

        Because that doesn’t serve the narrative.

        They ALSO don’t mention or recognize the FACT that Rubio’s and every OTHER caucus supporter of ANY candidate was aware of the same information.

        The narrative has to entertain the fantasy that ONLY Cruz supporters…uniquely POWERFUL Svengali-like “cheaters”…had this same information, AND that caucusing people…weak-willed mushrooms…were mesmerized by the news into changing their votes FROM Carson TO Cruz. Uniquely. Nobody else. Just Cruz.

        See? Silly.

        HandyGandy in reply to Sanddog. | February 3, 2016 at 2:42 pm

        Because it’s a news report and news reports are often wrong. Hillary Cruz’s people didn’t have to pass it on to the caucusers (?), and they certainly shouldn’t have passed it on without checking it.

        It’s troubling because I expect that the way Hillary Cruz runs his campaign is the way he would run his presidency. If CNN reported that Russia launched an all out nuclear attack, would Hillary’s staff start passing it down the line without proof?

        PS. Cruz has apologized to Carson. Carson kinda of accepted the apology, but he has said that he was damaged by this and he expects Cruz to do something to repair that damage.

        So if Cruz can accept culpability, why can’t you?

        If I was a Carson supporter, and I went to my caucus with the intention of supporting Carson, and some Cruz supporter said, Hey I Heard On CNN That Carson Was Dropping Out, that would not be enough to get me to dump Carson and vote for Cruz instead. At the very least I would ask some questions and check it out for myself.

        I mean, how stupid do you think Carson supporters ARE?

      Skeptic62 in reply to Mr. Izz. | February 3, 2016 at 2:29 pm

      I’m curious your opinion of Hillary winning six out of six coin tosses. Almost as difficult as turning $1,000 into $100,000 in six months I would say.

I thought of a quote this morning. “A country cannot litigate itself to greatness.” Don’t recall who said that, but it’s true. Trump’s answer to just about any setback is to sue.

    Ragspierre in reply to windbag. | February 3, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    …or THREATEN to sue, which is a tactic of a real cowardly bully.

    He actually sues a small fraction of the time he THREATENS to sue. A law suit has definite costs, and he’s not willing to pay them, very often.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2016 at 1:49 pm

      Many years ago, I was active in the ham radio community. One of the local hams was always a paper-thin distance from rule violations, and made a more or less constant nuisance out of himself. He, also, threatened lawsuits all the time. Finally, his bluff was called at a meeting of the biggest radio club in the area. He went down in flames to a degree no one expected, and he more or less shrunk into the woodwork.

      Trump’s bluster and bluff will be called eventually, and he will do the same.

    rotten in reply to windbag. | February 3, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    So Trump would be great for lawyers and the legal industry!

    Congrats to the Professor and not being a company man and endorsing the man most likely to help prop up the suffering elite law school industry.

How can Cruz be both a natural born American and natural born Canadian (born in Canada, and 2 Canadian parents mom == dual citizen)?

Dual citizenship didn’t exist at the time of the founding, and the purpose of the Constitutional clause has to be about disqualifying people with divided loyalties from office.

Does Cruz have to win this type of litigation in every state, because if he loses in even one state he has to go off the campaign trail and into the courthouse? Are Clinton and Obama appointed judges so honest that they will not screw with Cruz just to screw with Cruz?

———————

How is Cruz supposed to win anyways? What is his path to victory? He profiles similar to Romney but worse with moderates and better with Evangelicals.

But look at the Romney/Obama electoral map. Literally none of the swing states that Romney lost have a significant %% of evangelical voters. If he gets nominated and the Democrats can turn out their base, we’re looking at a 100 electoral vote blowout loss.

    MomInLatteland in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    If memory serves, this issue was settled in 2008. If at least one of the parents is an American Citizen, then that citizen’s offspring is considered a Natural Born Citizen. Obama’s mother was a citizen, his father was not. Ted Cruz’s mother NEVER became a Canadian citizen and retained her US citizenship. Cruz’s citizenship is much clearer than Obamas since Obama moved to another country as a child, was adopted by a citizen of that country and, as far as the murky records show, when he returned to this country had to apply for citizenship… but, hey, he was eligible. I’m sure all the lefty’s out there want to have all that come up again.

      Your memory is very defective.

      1. The actual meaning of the eligibility clause is not settled; all that was settled in 2008 was that it will never be settled, because no court is ever going to touch it. It’s not justiciable.

      2. 0bama’s moving to Indonesia for 4 years, and being adopted by an Indonesian, are completely irrelevant. Neither of these things could even potentially affect his citizenship or his eligibility.

      3. No, 0bama did not have to apply for citizenship. There are no records, murky or not, even hinting at any such thing. I can’t imagine where you got that screwy idea. Probably from the same place that the anti-Cruz lunatics got the idea that Cruz’s mother renounced her US citizenship.

        Hi Milhouse,

        There was an open question at one point as to if Obama had ~renounced~ his United States citizenship (or if his mother, acting as his “next friend” had done so on his behalf) when he entered Indonesia (arguably to be “adopted” by Soetoro). Indonesia (at that time) did not allow for “dual-citizenship” (you were either a citizen of Indonesia, or you were not, for the purposes of Indonesian law). Most of it stems from a bad reading of Indonesian law, the wrong US law, and proponents not being clear about dates.

        That argument seems to have been resolved (in Obama’s favor) by a very close reading of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3 that a renunciation of citizenship by a parent on behalf of a minor is not effective if the minor is under the age of 21 and the minor gains the other country’s citizenship AND the minor fails to establish permanent residence in the United States before age 25. Since Obama returned approximately age 10, any renunciation undertaken would have been moot.

        On the Indonesian side, no document has surfaced regarding an attempt to naturalize Obama into Indonesia, which would have been required because he (allegedly) was adopted in Indonesia AFTER he was 5 years old (those adopted under 5 gain citizenship by operation of law).

        1. The actual meaning of the eligibility clause is not settled; all that was settled in 2008 was that it will never be settled, because no court is ever going to touch it. It’s not justiciable.

        That doesn’t mean that it will never be settled. It just means that it will never be settled by a branch of the government that shouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole anyway.

        It MAY be rightly settled by an act of Congress, acting in its normal and intended function, by passing a definition of what a “natural born citizen” is.

        Except, that they’ve already done that, by passing requirements as to whom must be naturalized in ORDER to become a citizen, and whom need not act to ~BECOME~ a citizen (aka, being a natural-born citizen, by virtue of the circumstances that person had at the time of their birth).

      It’s both simpler and more complicated than that.

      A natural-born citizen appears to simply be one who was automatically born a citizen, with no need to apply or make any affirmative acts.

      The law when Ted Cruz was born was that people born abroad with one United States citizen parent were United States citizens at birth if the citizen-parent met residency requirements (one of which amounted to a de facto minimum age of 21) which his mother did. By contrast, had Obama been born outside of the United States (I don’t think he was) the same law would have made him *not* a natural-born citizen, since his eighteen-year-old mother could not possibly have lived in the United States for five years after the age of sixteen.

      Keep in mind that the original Constitution has no citizenship guarantee, so the native-born requirement for the Presidency could not have referred to a type of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution; there *wasn’t* any citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution, which left that entirely up to Congress. Birthright citizenship to those born on United States soil was added in the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee that all blacks including ex-slaves and their descendants would be citizens.

    Sanddog in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    The United States has zero control over the citizenship laws of other countries. North Korea could declare you a citizen tomorrow and it has nothing to do with your US citizenship.

      rotten in reply to Sanddog. | February 3, 2016 at 2:03 pm

      Ted Cruz’s mother was either a Canadian citizen or she was somebody who was legally affirming to the Canadian government that she was a Canadian citizen. She was also American because she was born in Maryland.

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ted-cruz-mother-canadian-voter-list

      Ted, with 2 Canadian parents and born in Canada is clearly a natural born Canadian. Indeed he had Canadian citizenship until a few months before he decided to run for President.

        Sanddog in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 2:07 pm

        That is not an official voter registration list. It’s a list put together by paid enumerators of everyone who lives in a specific district.

        Maybe you ought to fact check crap like that before you post it.

        Ragspierre in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 2:39 pm

        I’ve have to note that rotten’s posts have to be carefully taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

        IOW, he’s sometimes full of shit.

        2KC in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 3:05 pm

        It’s weird to see lefty blogs like TPM Muckraker quoted as unassailable authorities here. “TPM Muckraker Says This Horrible Thing About A Republican. OMG It Must Be True.”

        What next Daily Kos?

        Gunstar1 in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 3:49 pm

        It is quite simple.

        In 1967 the Cruz’s move to Canada.

        In 1970 Ted Cruz was born.

        Canadian law said you must be a resident for 5 years before you could file for citizenship. Meaning that 1972 is the first year that either of Ted’s parents would qualify for citizenship.

        Since 1970 is before 1972, Cruz’s mother could not have been a Canadian citizen at the time Ted was born.

        Was she a citizen at some point after becoming eligible in 1972 like his father was? It doesn’t matter, Ted was born in 1970.

        Was she eligible to vote in 1974 according to a document subject to errors and revision? It doesn’t matter, Ted was born in 1970.

          Milhouse in reply to Gunstar1. | February 3, 2016 at 3:55 pm

          Was she eligible to vote in 1974 according to a document subject to errors and revision? It doesn’t matter, Ted was born in 1970.

          True, but the document wasn’t so much “subject to errors and revision” as irrelevant. It wasn’t a list of registered voters, or even of people eligible to register; it was a list of who lived where, so that if someone registered to vote their residence could be verified. If a John Smith had given that address on his voter registration, the election registry would look it up and say “our records show there’s a Cruz family living at that address, and no Smiths”.

          Gunstar1 in reply to Gunstar1. | February 3, 2016 at 4:14 pm

          True, but that is not how people are claiming it, so I simply stated that even if it was what they claimed it to be, it still doesn’t matter.

          Funny enough, the list has them at the wrong address. The current owner of the address listed said that there were only 2 owners and it was not Cruz.

        Milhouse in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 3:50 pm

        1. She was not a Canadian citizen, neither when Ted was born nor four years later when she appeared on that list.
        2. She never claimed, to the Canadian government or to anyone else, that she was a Canadian citizen.
        3. She was not born in Maryland.

        0/3, rotten.

        Here are some more facts:
        * At the time Ted was born, his mother wasn’t even eligible for Canadian citizenship. She hadn’t yet lived in Canada for the required five years.
        * Four years later her name appeared on a list of all residents on her street, whether or not they were eligible to vote. She did not put her name on that list, she didn’t apply to be on it, she didn’t affirm anything to anyone to get on it. The purpose of the list was to verify voter registrations, and thus prevent vote fraud.
        * If she had become a Canadian citizen once she’d lived there for five years — which she didn’t — that would not have affected her US citizenship unless she consciously intended to renounce it.
        * Even if she had renounced her own US citizenship — which she didn’t — that could not possibly affect her son’s. She had no power to renounce that.

    Milhouse in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Dual citizenship didn’t exist at the time of the founding

    BS. Dual citizenship has existed ever since citizenship has. At the time the USA was founded UK law did not recognise renunciation of citizenship, so every US citizen remained a UK one as well. Eventually this led to the War of 1812.

    Does Cruz have to win this type of litigation in every state

    No, because there won’t be any litigation, in any state. The eligibility clause is not justiciable.

I am questioning TweedleThumps dual citizenship – Twump Towers U.S.A. and Planet Twump.

News You Can abUse: “Dr. Carson has left the caucus building”….”I’m going home…change my clothes…not gonna say if I’ll be back…”
The next day: “Wait!” “Cruz you ripped me off! Right DJ Twump?”

Rubio’s backers are talking about a 3-2-1 script.

Finish third in Iowa, 2nd in New Hampshire, and first in South Carolina (where every elected official supports him, except for Linsey Graham who supports Bush). Then ride front runner status into a Florida and Super Tuesday sweep.

In order to for this to work, they had to prop up Cruz in Iowa to destroy Trump and then destroy Cruz. Indeed, Mitch McConnell’s lawyers SuperPAC ran constant ads for Cruz in Iowa.

It looks like the events are following the script. They’ve even got a narrative to explain the upcoming Cruz loss in New Hampshire.

This is how the Republican base, concerned about Amnesty, will nominate a pro Amnesty Senator with no real record. Last time we were concerned about Obamacare and nominated Romneycare.

Get ready for Hillary.

    2KC in reply to rotten. | February 3, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Where Are You Getting All These Crazy “Theories” ?

    Maybe Cruz Won In Iowa Because More Republicans In Iowa Supported Him At The Caucuses.

The decisions of some democrat bureaucrats in Illinois is hardly persuasive of anything except the fact that they would love to see Hillary have a shot at Cruz.

It could turn out that Cruz is a tough target to hit with all the holy rolling around. Low moving target.

Cruz has those old timey back stabbing religion insane #GlennBeckValues

or just as scarry maybe he has those old timey back stabbing religion #EndTimesValues.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 3, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    It isn’t just “persuasive” you lying moron…

    IT’S CONCLUSIVE in that state. AND it will be followed in all other.

    Loser.

    #SuckTrump

      Nothing is conclusive until the supreme court has spoken. As someone who pretends to be a lawyer you should pretend to know that.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 3, 2016 at 4:51 pm

        But as a BETTER lawyer than you, and as a conservative, I don’t look to the Supremes for guidance OR lie about things in the service of a Progressive Collectivist.

        You DO. And we all know it.

        Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | February 3, 2016 at 6:28 pm

        The Supreme Court will never speak on it, and nor will any other court, because it’s not justiciable.

        We aren’t discussing what you look to. You stated these bureaucrats decisions were conclusive in Illinois which of course is complete bullcrap. The state courts of Illinois and the Supreme court of USA all have jurisdiction to review this decision. Your pretend lawyer stupidity is showing.

    Brother DJ Thrump, the long standing’ long winded Presbyterian preacher of pap, has been slain in the Pocketbook.

    Send him your $100 and he will send you his monogrammed handkerchief brother Britt. And call the 800# for the snake oil serum to rub on your snake.

Henry Hawkins | February 3, 2016 at 2:35 pm

During Trup’s outwardly gracious concession speech after his Iowa loss, I got the feeling he was biting his lip mightily, hence the brevity from a man who is never brief. Two days later and he’s pumping out ugly, whiny tweets faster than boggers can post them. Now he’s threatening to sue for “voter fraud” because, as any fool knows, Trump is an all the time, every time winner who never loses, so if he lost in Iowa, it could only have been due to someone cheating him. Okay. Sure. Grow a pair, dude.

You know how billionaires succeed in business? Deep pockets. Oppose their plans and they’ll simply assign fifty lawyers to tie up your case until you run out of money for your own lawyers and either settle or quit. Trump does that with his own money. Just imagine how he’ll solve problems by throwing money at them *when it’s someone else’s money*. Taxpayer, beware.

    Radegunda in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 3, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    Wasn’t the main theme of Trump’s post-caucus speech “I can win and I’m gonna win”? (Though he did have the graciousness to use “we” this time, with his whole family standing around him — or rather, parts of a couple of his three “families”).

    Main theme of other candidates’ speeches: “Here’s what needs to be done for the future of this country.”

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Radegunda. | February 3, 2016 at 6:20 pm

      Well, when the sole time a candidate speaks, however briefly, in a gracious and adult manner, you can bet it was because he was gobsmacked out of his mind by having just lost his first primary after seven months of 24/7 obnoxious ‘I’m A Winner!’ braggadocio. Within 24 hours he regained his usual footing and returned to obnoxious form. “I was cheated, I tell ya!” lololol

JackRussellTerrierist | February 3, 2016 at 2:47 pm

What I notice about this is that humpatwerp is trying to make a mountain out of something he wouldn’t have mentioned if he’d won. He’s just using/abusing Carson to try to get at Cruz because he, himself, is a LOSER!

“WahwahwahwahwahwahwAH! I’m going scream and pout and make demands and have a major blowout blowhard bombastic tirade of a tantrum right here and now and I don’t care who I use or run over to do it!!! Sue! Sue! Sue him!!”

    I’ve seen a breakdown of how many caucus-goers would need to have gone along unquestioningly with the “Carson is out” rumor in order to make a difference in the delegate allotment (Cruz 8, Trump 7, Rubio 7, Carson 3).

    It’s true that Trump publicly labeled Carson supporters in Iowa “stupid,” but the rest of us aren’t bound by that assessment.

I have already said that I think Cruz is more eligible to be president then Barry is.

I have also said that Congress should in a quiet time, pass a law requiring a candidate be certified by the FEC to be eligible before he can do anything about running for President. If not then this is all going to end up with us having Ahhhnold as President.

Given that what are you doing posting a story about a fight between the Chicago Teachers Union and a corrupt CPS then glorifying a decision made by the Illinois Board of Elections which is mostly controlled by Chicago politicians.

Also why mischaracterize the NH results, which are more like “we will put him on the ballot, but seak guidance from the courts”?

Cruz has his share of warts, like the rest of them.

He said ” I will never get – nor do I want – money from the DC lobbyists’ –
but, reality begs to differ.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/02/seriously-how-can-ted-cruz-supporters-defend-this/#more-111867

Sorry, but he doesn’t walk on water.

    He’d be the first to agree. His wife would be the second. And then his kids…

    Gunstar1 in reply to clafoutis. | February 3, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Frankly, it doesn’t say what they are claiming it says.

    It says at the bottom of that linked page for the list:

    “This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 2011-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.”

    So what that author is saying is that Cruz’s statement that he will not accept donations from DC lobbyists means not only the company, but none of their employees, and none of the employees families.

    Something tells me that is not what Cruz meant.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gunstar1. | February 3, 2016 at 4:53 pm

      The Conservative Tree Sloughs have about the same creds. as Mother Jones.

      On a good day at Conservative Tree Sloughs….

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2016 at 5:18 pm

        Conservative Nuthouse is the source for the claim that Skittles™ and Arizona™ Watermelon Drink are the main ingredients in “purple drank”. This is a subject on which Wikipedia can be presumed much more reliable, and it says the usual mixers are Jolly Rancher™ and Sprite™ or Mountain Dew™. The main thing, though, is that there’s no point to the mixers without the main ingredient, for which one needs a prescription.

        It’s also the source for the theory that when St Trayvon allegedly described George Zimmerman to his alleged girlfriend as a “crazy-ass cracker”, i.e. a strange white person, he meant “crazy ass-cracker”, i.e. a maddened homosexual.

          Radegunda in reply to Milhouse. | February 3, 2016 at 6:24 pm

          A well-placed hyphen is a powerful thing.

          You don’t need Codeine in order to make Lean. Anyone who tells you differently is is entirely ignorant of modern drug subculture and needs to shut up. That’s been a big fallacy of the whole “well, Trayvon Martin wasn’t high” BS that highly obscured a lot of the bad behavior that was a direct cause of Martin’s attack on Zimmerman and Martin’s coming to be shot.

          Most of the people discussing Lean/Purple Drank have absolutely NO IDEA what they’re talking about.

          Lean can be made with standard OTC Robitussin. The active ingredient in it is Dextromethorphan (DXM or DM), which in the proper quantities is a dissociative anesthetic. Again Codeine is NOT required. That’s part of the reason it’s called “Robo-tripping.”

          Dextromethorphan acts as partially as a nonselective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, a sigma-1 receptor agonist, and its major metabolite, dextrorphan, also act as an NMDA receptor antagonist at high doses. In higher doses, it produces effects similar to dissociative states such as ketamine and phencyclidine.

          An individual taking it has to be careful to purchase the right KIND of Dextromethorphan, so that they don’t end up with heart failure or lung failure from OTHER additives.

          Then, you have to get the doseage right for your body weight. Too little = no trip. Too much = your brain damaged (or dead). It’s also why you’re supposed to have a baby-sitter (someone to watch you) in case you get the dosage wrong and something bad happens. Also, what disassociative state you’re shooting for dictates how much you take (a certain amount for tipsy-ness, a certain amount for lucid-dreaming or low-level hypnotic-disassociation, a certain amount for high-level dream/vision-quest states).

          The problem is that its hard to drink straight Dextromethorphan. The body dislikes drinking the quantity necessary to get to the disassociative state (sometimes multiple BOTTLES in one event). THAT’S why it’s mixed with the Watermelon drink and the skittles, to bypass the body rebelling against the taste and additives.

          Martin’s autopsy/tox panel showed none of the constituent ingredients of “lean”/”purple drank,” either the original type which is made with prescription-only cold syrup or the OTC version you’re surmising he was “high” on.

          But generally when people talk about lean or purple drank, it *IS* the kind made with the prescription-only cough syrup, with promethazine and codeine. That’s what the rappers drink (and occasionally OD from), and that’s what the wannabes are copying.

          http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/purple-drank-effects.html

          But in any case, with no promethazine, no codeine, and not even any dextromethorphan in his system when he died, the whole point is moot.

          The self-styled “wolverines” were clutching at straws there, just as they were with the “ass-cracker” analysis.

        amwick in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2016 at 8:55 pm

        The New Hampshire Ballot Commision’s written decision on a Ted Cruz Eligibility challenge( http://sos.nh.gov/2015-16BLC.aspx )
        Clearly, there is no final decision on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” and this Commission is not the appropriate forum for the determination of major Constitutional questions. (That being said, the Commission notes that the appropriate raising in and deciding of this question by a court equipped to decide such Constitutional matters, so that all election officials and the American people know once and for all the definition of “natural born citizen,” would be helpful in avoiding uncertainty.)

        The New Hampshire Ballot commission just ducked and ran. If they are saying that the question has not been decided then, well, maybe there is something to it.

          As was pointed out above, the Trumpservative Nuthouse completely misrepresented that list. Scroll up to Gunstar1’s comment of 4:10pm yesterday and read it. Or better yet, click on your own link and read the disclaimer right from the horse’s mouth. Try not to miss the line in red, and the other lines in bold, this time.

Henry Hawkins | February 3, 2016 at 8:41 pm

Ditditditditdit…. This just in….Trump to sue Illinois Board of Elections. Trump requesting lists of Iowa caucus voters, intends to sue anyone who did not vote for him.

Why has LI not addressed Cruzs lying about Ben Carson quitting the race, just as the Iowa caucuses began?

While there is no way to know what impact it may have had, if any, as a Cruz supporter I want some kind of an explanation. I supported Carson first, but like many I opted to support the best performing conservative so as to not divide the conservative vote, and Cruz was a proven entity.

But this move, against a good man like Carson, calls his integrity into question.

Please do not ignore it. Please continue being as fair and open an arbiter as you have been up till now.

    Milhouse in reply to SeanInLI. | February 4, 2016 at 3:16 am

    Because neither Cruz nor anyone in his campaign lied. CNN reported that Carson was going home to Florida, and was going to make an announcement. People, including the Cruz and Rubio campaigns, drew the obvious conclusion from this, and told their people to spread the word at the caucuses. If it was not the right conclusion then it was up to Carson’s people at each caucus to tell people so.

    It seems more likely to me that it was the right conclusion, and that Carson had intended to drop out but changed his mind when he did unexpectedly well. So then he came up with that bizarre story about needing to go home for clean clothes, as if there are neither cleaners nor clothing stores in Iowa, nor even delivery services that can transport a package from Florida to Iowa. And, having got many more votes than he expected, he blamed Cruz (but, oddly enough, not Rubio) for his not having got even more.

Of course Trump will keep hitting him on it.

Because,
1) Trump is fundamentally a dishonest person.

2) Trump campaigns like a Democrat (see above)

3) There’s nothing else Trump can say to attack Cruz. What’s he going to do, point out that Cruz is more Conservative than he is on every issue? That would only help him.

At least Obama was born on u.s. soil.

Fail. The IL Board of Elections, like our corrupt cultural Marxist leader, Perfesser BJ, is trying to amend the Constitution by expunging the word “natural.” If the Framers had meant “born citizen” they would have not written “natural born citizen.” The principles of constitution construction require that every word be given force and effect. Perfesser BJ must know this, which is why I know he is a corrupt subversive.

The only way Born-Near-the-USA Cruz can claim US citizenship is by pointing to a federal statute, and Congress only has the enumerated power to pass laws pertaining to naturalization. Perfessor BJ likes to whine about the Constitution not defining “natural born citizen,” but it doesn’t define many terms used, including “naturalization.” But, we all know that naturalization is the process by which a noncitizen is made a citizen. Because Cruz must invoke a naturalization statute to prove his US citizenship (which is questionable, given that his mother was supposedly a registered Canadian voter at the time, when Canada did not recognize dual citizenship), it follows that he cannot be a natural born citizen.

I’m hardly surprised that an administrative board in the Land of Obama would follow the cultural Marxist example of urinating on our Constitution. Their statement saying no further discussion is welcome is proof that they know their decision is not sound. Just like Perfesser BJ’s pathetic whine that the constitutionalists come up with arguments faster than he can refute them. Try applying the principles of constitutional construction, BJ, and you’ll arrive at a robust and defensible conclusion.

    genes in reply to Skookum. | February 4, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    He is more of a US Citizen than YOU will ever be.

      Skookum in reply to genes. | February 7, 2016 at 9:56 am

      Given that I’m natural born to natural-born parents, understand English, and know the principles of constitutional construction, it’s safe to conclude that I can turn your cultural Marxist statement around and correctly point it back at you. Your untenable interpretation means terror imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in NM to noncitizen Yemeni parents (a Rubio and Jindal analog), was eligible for the presidency or vice presidency before he got droned.

      *****

      Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

      “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
      -The Venus 12 U.S. 253 (1814)

    Milhouse in reply to Skookum. | February 5, 2016 at 1:14 am

    which is questionable, given that his mother was supposedly a registered Canadian voter at the time, when Canada did not recognize dual citizenship)

    You are an outright liar.

      Skookum in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2016 at 10:08 am

      Actually, you are the liar here. I qualified my statement about Cruz’s mom being a Canadian voter. In my ignorance on the subject I could not lie, because a lie is knowingly telling of a falsehood. I accept your analysis of her situation, which I read a moment ago.

      Now let’s see if you’re man enough to admit your error.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend