Constitution is clear: Ted Cruz is US citizen

Opinion: January 24, 2016 at 12:00a.m.

It seems that the older I get, the more intolerant I become of stupidity, which might explain my abhorrence to many Republicans, most Democrats, and all of the news media. The most recent example of idiocy in our country is the inability of the people to understand the meaning of the word “natural” as used by the U.S. Constitution when defining presidential qualifications: “No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

This all relates to the phony attempt to say Ted Cruz cannot run for president because he was born to an American citizen while in Canada.

Many politicians and news media hacks are trying to confuse people on this issue, counting on the fact that most people were educated in the American education system, meaning that they are pretty much dupes when it comes to anything requiring rational thought.

However, the inference in the Constitution is not that hard to understand even from a linguistic perspective. The word “natural” when used in the context of a natural born citizen simply means by nature of, as in citizenship granted by natural born birth.

Everyone born to a U.S. citizen is automatically a citizen regardless of the place of birth because citizenship flows from the status of the parent; the child is a citizen by nature of being born to a citizen. It is the citizenship of the parent, not geographical location, that bestows the natural citizenship. Therefore, anyone born to a United States citizen is a citizen by nature of their birth (i.e. natural), qualifying them to run for president.

Ted Cruz has been a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth since taking his first breath, and, as such, he is a natural born citizen qualified to be president.

Joseph K. Waltenbaugh, New Castle, Pa.

Economic divide grows as wide as racial divide in the United States

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a report on the black family. Though criticized by civil rights activists at the time, it was the first meaningful attempt to explain cultural attitudes and conditions that existed in the black community. Since that 1965 report, study after study have always focused on some negative statistic about people of color. Now, that focus is changing.

C-Span Host Bill Scanlon recently interviewed sociologist and scholar Barbara Ehrenreigh. She released an article in the Washington Journal titled “Death Rates Rising For Middle-Aged White Americans.” The age group targeted was from 45 to 54. She noted that while the life-expectancy or longevity gap between blacks and whites was five years, a similar gap has developed between the white working class and affluent whites.

To explain this phenomenon, she talks about the deindustrialization that took place in the 1980s and 1990s. As better paying jobs left the country, many whites were forced to take lower paying jobs. They found themselves struggling to make ends meet. Despair followed as many turned to alcoholism, drugs and suicide.

In talking about the bottom 25 percent of the white working class, the author doesn’t hesitate to use the term racism – lower-class white racism. She points out the irony of being poor and supporting a candidate who favors tax breaks for the wealthy and favors holding down the minimum wage.

Barbara is the Daniel Patrick Moynihan of our day. Truly, she has provided the spark that will ignite an understanding of the attitudes and conditions that exist in the white family.

Alfred Spencer, Warren