Kamala Harris the ineligible

 

 

I have posted this on several sites already. It’s a long read, but I tried to be as concise as possible. First off, Kamala Harris is not eligible.

Like Obama and Ted Cruz, the mother is not relevant to the eligibility issue, and never has been.  Read on and see what has been hidden will be revealed.

I know that those that taut Vattel, with the father and mother as separate entities are set in stone and this is wrong. The equation they use is Citizen Father (1) and Citizen Mother (2) and Born in Country(3), as a three legged stool. This is shortsighted as Vattel states in § 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

Again; Their children follow the condition of their fathers

Then in § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

 

Again; By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.

So back when Barack Obama came on the scene and stated the following.

So what does Barack Obama claim? “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” Let me explain. First off, the above statement claims no US Citizenship, it states that Barack was born to a British citizen and that act carried onto his children.

That act states that under that act, the underage supposed mother became a British subject (following the condition of her husband) and even with any US citizenship, Barack Obama can never be a ‘natural born citizen’. The location of his birth did not qualify Obama under the jurisdiction of US law.

 

This is why the mother (under the language of the Constitution does not matter, and there has been no amendment to alter that language. Remember what John Bingham wrote about the language in our Constitution.) historically a man and a woman come together as one (in marriage) they produce offspring, children. The wife becomes one with the husband and takes his condition. This is why under history and outlined in Vattel, the mother is not a separate entity, but conjoined in the union. The term as defined by the framers/founders understood this as they used Vattel in the founding of a new nation, (Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas). Thought out the Congressional record, debates, etc, the term parents were used together, however it was understood to mean as one. Christian theology (forgive the spelling here) Under the 14th Amendment, those that were born and UNDER the Jurisdiction were declared citizens, but this did not alter/change/amend the Natural-Born requirement.

 

Several cases beyond the 14th Amendment also clarify that just being born in the US does not make one a citizen, Elk vs Walkins 1884, that the US Supreme Court held that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.for example, that being said, it wasn’t till later that native Indians were granted citizenship. Even the touted Wong Kim Ark case declared she was a just a citizen.

One notable case is President Grant’s daughter, in 1874, she, Nellie Grant married Algernon Charles Frederick Sartoris, an Englishman. The couple left the United States and lived in Great Britain. British law stated that an alien woman became an English subject when she married a citizen of Great Britain. (Again, the British Acts declared that the wife follow the condition of her husband, that same act followed Barack Obama’s statement as earlier noted and why there is no mention of Barack Obama’s mother) Did this give Nellie Grant dual citizenship? The Act of 1868 determined that, by establishing residency outside the country, she had relinquished her American citizenship. When Nellie Grant Sartoris returned to the United States at the end of her marriage, State Department practice at the time held that, by returning, she automatically regained her citizenship. Despite this, in 1896, she petitioned Congress to reinstate her American nationality. In a Special Act of 1898, she regained an unconditional resumption of her citizenship. Thereby establishing she lost her citizenship my marrying a foreign national.  Mind you this was no ordinary citizen, but the daughter of the US President.

 

Moving forward to the FIRST TIME a woman could retain her US citizenship if she married a foreigner was in 1922 with the Cable Act, when a woman married a foreign national she lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women, since again the wife takes the condition of her husband as do the children.

Again, moving forward, to The Citizenship Act of 1934, a U.S. citizen mother were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

 

That being the case, think of both Barack Obama and Ted Cruz. Prior to 2007, numerous references concerning Barack Obama state Kenyan-Born. Stanley Ann married a British subject, under the British Nationality Act. Barack Obama, foreign born to a foreign father, and then again at Ted Cruz, foreign born in Canada, to a foreign father (Cuban) and a mother who married a British subject, resided in England, prior to Ted Cruz’s birth in Alberta, Canada. Both sounds familiar.

 

To that point in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

 

Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

 

If you were born between May 25, 1934, and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had resided in the U.S. prior to your birth. The law at this time placed no additional conditions on retaining U.S. citizenship acquired in this way.

This is the reason prior to 1934, citizenship was based solely on the father. From the founding of the nation till 1934, the father was the determining criteria and the mother was irrelevant, as documented. The framers and founders understood that children follow the condition of their father.

Then in 1957, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, an UN convention that entered force in 1958 and was ratified by 74 countries, protects the citizenships of women who married citizens of other countries (previously such a marriage often resulted in the loss of the woman’s original citizenship).

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

Neither Acts of Congress has altered the Constitutional requirement of a Natural-Born Citizen nor as John Bingham wrote language of our Constitution, the courts have polluted the understanding and historical meaning to hide their treason.

 

Here is John Bingham, Framer of the 14^th Amendment

 

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

 

The Constitutional requirement has not been altered by an amendment, as required by the United States Constitution.

Kamala’s parents were foreigners, owing allegiance to Jamaica and India. Is she even a US citizen?

Obama’s mother? Why she doesn’t matter, neither does Ted Cruz’s

Barack Obama’s mother is not relevant to the eligibility issue, and never has been.  Read on and see what has been hidden will be revealed.

 

So what does Barack Obama claim? “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” Let me explain. First off, the above statement claims no US Citizenship, it states that Barack was born to a British citizen and that act carried onto his children.

That act states that under that act, the underage supposed mother became a British subject (following the condition of her husband) and even with any US citizenship, Barack Obama can never be a ‘natural born citizen’. The location of his birth did not qualify Obama under the jurisdiction of US law.

This is why the mother (under the language of the Constitution does not matter, and there has been no amendment to alter that language. Remember what John Bingham wrote about the language in our Constitution.) historically a man and a woman come together as one (in marriage) they produce offspring, children. The wife becomes one with the husband and takes his condition. This is why under history and outlined in Vattel, the mother is not a separate entity, but conjoined in the union. The term as defined by the framers/founders understood this as they used Vattel in the founding of a new nation, (Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas). Thought out the Congressional record, debates, etc, the term parents were used together, however it was understood to mean as one. Christian theology (forgive the spelling here) Under the 14th Amendment, those that were born and UNDER the Jurisdiction were declared citizens, but this did not alter/change/amend the Natural-Born requirement.

Several cases beyond the 14th Amendment also clarify that just being born in the US does not make one a citizen, Elk vs Walkins 1884, that the US Supreme Court held that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.for example, that being said, it wasn’t till later that native Indians were granted citizenship. Even the touted Wong Kim Ark case declared she was a just a citizen.

One notable case is President Grant’s daughter, in 1874, she, Nellie Grant married Algernon Charles Frederick Sartoris, an Englishman. The couple left the United States and lived in Great Britain. British law stated that an alien woman became an English subject when she married a citizen of Great Britain. (Again, the British Acts declared that the wife follow the condition of her husband, that same act followed Barack Obama’s statement as earlier noted and why there is no mention of Barack Obama’s mother) Did this give Nellie Grant dual citizenship? The Act of 1868 determined that, by establishing residency outside the country, she had relinquished her American citizenship. When Nellie Grant Sartoris returned to the United States at the end of her marriage, State Department practice at the time held that, by returning, she automatically regained her citizenship. Despite this, in 1896, she petitioned Congress to reinstate her American nationality. In a Special Act of 1898, she regained an unconditional resumption of her citizenship. Thereby establishing she lost her citizenship my marrying a foreign national.  Mind you this was no ordinary citizen, but the daughter of the US President.

Moving forward to the FIRST TIME a woman could retain her US citizenship if she married a foreigner was in 1922 with the Cable Act, when a woman married a foreign national she lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women, since again the wife takes the condition of her husband as do the children.

Again, moving forward, to The Citizenship Act of 1934, a U.S. citizen mother were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

That being the case, think of both Barack Obama and Ted Cruz. Prior to 2007, numerous references concerning Barack Obama state Kenyan-Born. Stanley Ann married a British subject, under the British Nationality Act. Barack Obama, foreign born to a foreign father, and then again at Ted Cruz, foreign born in Canada, to a foreign father (Cuban) and a mother who married a British subject, resided in England, prior to Ted Cruz’s birth in Alberta, Canada. Both sounds familiar.

To that point in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

If you were born between May 25, 1934, and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had resided in the U.S. prior to your birth. The law at this time placed no additional conditions on retaining U.S. citizenship acquired in this way.

This is the reason prior to 1934, citizenship was based solely on the father. From the founding of the nation till 1934, the father was the determining criteria and the mother was irrelevant, as documented. The framers and founders understood that children follow the condition of their father.

Then in 1957, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, an UN convention that entered force in 1958 and was ratified by 74 countries, protects the citizenships of women who married citizens of other countries (previously such a marriage often resulted in the loss of the woman’s original citizenship).

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

Neither Acts of Congress has altered the Constitutional requirement of a Natural-Born Citizen nor as John Bingham wrote language of our Constitution, the courts have polluted the understanding and historical meaning to hide their treason.

 

Senator Crapo – Stand up or Stand down

 

 

Mr Crapo,

As a United States Citizen I’m hereby asking why you have not instituted a Electoral Commission concerning Ted Cruz’s ineligibility to seek the Office of the United States President. As you will recall you were quite adamant when asked about Barack Obama’s.

You sent out the following letter emphatically stating that since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, that he was Constitutionally eligible, I was a recipient of your letter.

Your statement follows;

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama’s case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an “application for emergency stay” filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.”

Since Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz has documented that he was in fact born in a foreign country Canada to a foreign national father and a questionable US citizen mother. A clear violation of the standard that you claimed legitimized Barack Obama. Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz posting his Canadian Birth Certificate clearly documented that he was in fact born outside the United States, and by US statute is a naturalized US citizen, and not a Natural Born Citizen as even you defined in your statement above.
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…”
~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866
(Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)
again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Mr Crapo, you can’t have it both ways. Either Barack Obama is illegitimate and you failed in your sworn duty and oath to the United States Constitution, or Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is illegitimate, and in this case you are guilty of failing again to uphold your oath of office. Which is it?

The responsibility in this matter does not rest with the Courts, Election Boards, or the Secretary of State, it rests solely on Congress and our Congressional representatives, and that includes you.

Cruz launches his own ‘Fight the Smears’ website to deceive the public

Teddy Cruz in the tradition of Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears has launched a website dedicated to misrepresenting the facts concerning his eligibility. Teddy’s website

Here is the Teddy Cruz talking points

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to be President?

• Ted Cruz was born to an American mother—born in Delaware—and was therefore a U.S. Citizen time of his birth.  That makes Cruz a natural-born citizen who is eligible to be president.

• The top constitutional lawyers in the country under Presidents (Neal Katyal) and Bush (Paul Clement) conclusively agree that “[d]espite the happenstance of birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” because he was born of an American mother.
• No constitutional scholar believes Cruz is ineligible to be president.  Even Laurence Tribe and Thomas Lee, who are often cited as critics, believe he is eligible.

• The threat of a lawsuit is not serious. Even if someone were to gain standing, a difficult first step, no legal expert believes that any court in the land would rule against Cruz.

 

Now here are the facts;

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Teddy Cruz was born in Canada. Here is Teddy Cruz’s Birth Certificate. In an attempt confuse the issue, they list where is mother was born and not Teddy’s birth location. Talk about deception. The United States Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray in 1898 stated it clearly.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…” ~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Where was Teddy Cruz born? Canada.

Teddy Cruz attempts to equate a citizen at birth with a Natural Born Citizen. This is false misleading and again deceptive.

First off There is no evidence that any paperwork was filed after Teddy birth with the US Consulate, which would have been required.

In the following United States Supreme Court Case Rogers v. Bellei (1971), proving that like Belli, Teddy Cruz was born in a foreign country to a foreign father and a US mother. The court held that Belli was a ‘Naturalized’ citizen by virtue of someone who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.

“Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, 1971

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who 4 years earlier wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971):

“Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.” (emphasis added)

In the United States Supreme Court case of Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

Another snippet in the same paragraph is “there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” because he was born of an American mother.”

Again, outright lies and deception.

Here is what the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ means.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866

(Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)

again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

 

As for the:

No constitutional scholar believes Cruz is ineligible to be president.  Even Laurence Tribe and Thomas Lee, who are often cited as critics, believe he is eligible.

 

Cruz—was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Tribe wrote that originalists would argue the Constitution’s framers likely intended “natural born”—a constitutional prerequisite for becoming U.S. president—to mean physically born in the United States. By these standards, he continued, Cruz should be ineligible to hold the nation’s highest office.

 

In simple truth,

Was Ted Cruz born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty?

The answer is NO, and that can be the only answer.

Ted Cruz was born in a foreign country, to a foreign national.

 

• The threat of a lawsuit is not serious. Even if someone were to gain standing, a difficult first step, no legal expert believes that any court in the land would rule against Cruz.

Really, if there were no issue and the previous points were irrelevant when why this talking point.

Answer. Because Ted Cruz like Barack Obama realizes that the only thing that can prevent an ineligible candidate from getting placed on the ballot in the first place is an educated electorate. The democrats have already threatened legal action against Ted Cruz if he’s elected and they will not only have standing, but the resources to eliminate any chance Ted Cruz has.

The most damning evidence is Teddy’s own Canadian Citizenship documentation 

It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a CRBA form with a U.S. Consulate at the time of birth.

The statutes governing this naturalization process state;

“A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

 

So Teddy was able to renounce his Canadian Citizenship but can not prove that he was even filed for US Citizenship when he was born.

Ted Cruz, Barack Obama and the keystone

People have been demanding that the courts remove Barack Obama, (who has occupied the Office of the President illegally) as he is not a Natural-Born Citizen as the United States Constitution requires. They have repeatedly  filed cases for redress of grievances and remedy due to his illegal and unconstitutional acts and usurpation of power. The same ineligibility that has stained the Obama presidency has now broadened to include the 2016 Presidential election with the latest travesty against the American people the Republican party is promoting Ted Cruz, who fails as a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’.

Again the people are going to the courts and election boards in a effort to seek relief and justice. This effort is ‘barking up the wrong tree’. There is a process and it has been used before.

The latest cases involving Ted Cruz and now Marco Rubio will continue to go nowhere and get lost in the shuffle. The courts and election boards will refuse to accept their responsibilities and kick the can down the road and when the dust settles and people realize that once again they not only have been denied a honest election but their past is also been hijacked and ruined.

That being the case, I have laid out the proper venue and remedy for the current mess that we are in and the reason why it may not get resolved.

The New York Board of Elections in their rejection of the case, stated it very clearly; “Objection is beyond the ministerial scope of the board. Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

Let me be clear “Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

“as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead, these voters directly elect designated intermediaries called “electors,” who almost always have pledged to vote for particular presidential and vice presidential candidates (though unpledged electors are possible) and who are themselves selected according to the particular laws of each state. Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states as well as to the District of Columbia (also known as Washington, D.C.). The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. Therefore, in total, there are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.

People are under the impression that voting on election day equates to voting for the candidates directly. This is a misconception. It is their vote for the candidates electors.

Because of this the courts have stated that the citizens do not have legal standing.

Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. State laws define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

The courts are stating that the citizens are not directly harmed by the election of the President. Regardless of the burdens and unconstitutional acts. That being the case, and since the electors are the ones that directly elect the President and Vice-President, they are the only members who directly elects the President has standing. That being stated, one venue would be to start legal proceedings against the electoral college members that voted for Barack Obama as a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Below is some brief code on Electors;

Meeting and vote of electors

§ 7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

Manner of voting

§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

Certificates of votes for president and vice president

§ 9. The electors shall make and sign six certificates of all the votes given by them, each of which certificates shall contain two distinct lists, one of the votes for President and the other of the votes for Vice President, and shall annex to each of the certificates one of the lists of the electors which shall have been furnished to them by direction of the executive of the State.

Sealing and endorsing certificates

§ 10. The electors shall seal up the certificates so made by them, and certify upon each that the lists of all the votes of such State given for President, and of all the votes given for Vice President, are contained therein.

Return to 3 USC Ch. 1, Table of Contents

In a presidential election, the popular vote simply means an aggregate of all voters from all states in America. It is quite possible that a candidate wins the popular vote (i.e. gets more votes over all) and yet loses the presidential election. This is because although Americans vote directly for their chosen candidate in the presidential election every 4 years, the president is elected by the institution called the Electoral College.

That being said, what is the correct venue?

Congress has the authority, even if the Courts do nothing!

From the following link

Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?

The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.

In this election of 2016, will it be a repeat of 1876? 1876 you ask.

The Electoral Commission was a temporary body created by Congress to resolve the disputed United States presidential election of 1876. It consisted of 15 members. The election was contested by the Democratic ticket, Samuel J. Tilden and Thomas A. Hendricks, and the Republican ticket,Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler. Twenty electoral votes, from the states of Florida,Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina, were in dispute; the resolution of these disputes would determine the outcome of the election. Facing a constitutional crisis the likes of which the nation had never seen, Congress passed a law forming the Electoral Commission to settle the result.

The Commission consisted of fifteen members: five representatives, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices. Eight members were Republicans; seven were Democrats. The Commission ultimately voted along party lines to award all twenty disputed votes to Hayes, thus assuring his victory in the Electoral College by a margin of 185-184.

Electoral Commission

To begin, there needs to be a Constitutional Crisis

A constitutional crisis is a situation that a legal system’s constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Often, generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government(e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments).

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future. For instance, the United States Constitution is silent on the question of whether states may secede from the Union; however, after the secession of several states was forcibly prevented in the American Civil War, it has become generally accepted that states cannot leave the Union.

A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government’s sovereignty, as in a coup orrevolution led by the military or civilian protesters.

A constitutional crisis can lead to government paralysis, collapse, or civil war.

A Constitutional Crisis leads to the creation of the Electoral Commission.

A Constitutional Crisis leads to the creation of the Electoral Commission. That Commission has the authority to not only vet the candidates but to disqualify those that as in the United States Constitution states ‘fail to qualify’.

The Courts will do nothing.

The arguments suggest that since the courts have determined they don’t have jurisdiction in such eligibility cases, and claim there is no effective procedure to qualify candidates in Congress, the logical result would be to have election officials, such as the Secretary of State, make such decisions.

And regarding the removal of a sitting official who is ineligible, there is state Supreme Court precedent, it was in the 1930s in North Dakota when Thomas H. Moodie was “duly elected to the office of governor,” the case explains.

Later, “It was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor,” it confirmed.

North Dakota’s historical archives document the case.

The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution

The Democrat party in 2008 and 2012 violated the United States Constitution by knowingly running an ineligible candidate that did not meet the Constitutional requirements. The Republican party is knowingly doing the same in 2016, by running Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz and Marco Rubio. Both parties have violated the United States Constitution.

Violate (break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement) a Provision (a clause in a legal instrument, a law, etc., providing for a particular matter; stipulation; proviso.) 

In simple english, both the Democrats and Republicans have violated the United States Constitution, by providing ineligible candidates to occupy and use the Office of the Presidency and it’s Constitutional powers for the destruction of the United States.

Expecting Congress to do anything is akin to having the fox guard the hen house, but also going back and asking the fox the number of hens and  expecting them all to be there. When nothing is left, oh well, you trusted the fox.

Congress would have to impeach itself for dereliction of duty and treason against the United States for anything to happen. They are complicit to the usurpation of the Presidency and crimes against the American people.

Every single member of Congress, now sitting and since 2008, knows that Barack Obama is illegitimate and a domestic enemy of the United States and his removal was warranted the minute he took the oath of office under false pretenses.

Since the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Cold Case Posse who has exposed the Obama counterfeit documents and held multiple media press conferences and exposed them for what they are with evidence to back them up. The media has remained silent. The media has disenfranchised, ridiculed, mocked people for demanding that a Congressional investigation be done and to end the mockery against the American people regarding the illegal usurpation of their nation and it’s laws.

Every member of Congress is now open to legal prosecution for their crimes against the Citizens of their jurisdiction. That jurisdiction meaning Concurrent Jurisdiction (Federal or state courts could hear) for allowing unconstitutional federal laws to be enacted and enforced in their jurisdiction (such as ObamaCare), to Exclusive jurisdiction (Only federal courts have authority to hear , state courts cannot) federal crimes including failing to uphold their oath of office to protect the United States Constitution. 

 

 

BusTED

Another Cruz loss in Soth Carolina. Third place!

Trump is 100% correct – Ted Cruz is not eligible!

 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.J.Res. 88

JULY 24, 2000

“The natural-born citizenship requirement is unjust and discriminatory. It is inevitable that one day soon a candidate will rise in America who was not born in this country that the American people would like to be President of the United States. Let’s amend the Constitution now so that all children who grow up in America can dream of one day becoming President. Let’s bring hope of equality in citizenship to all the children who are raised in America.”

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju6730…

Now consider this:

This was one of a number of attempts to remove the Natural Born REQUIREMENT. It failed.

But more important to the discussion, it clearly shows that it’s intent is to allow foreign born citizens the ability to seek the office of the Presidency.

If this was not required to allow even those like Rafael Ted Cruz to seek the office, then why was it attempted?

Foreign born Rafael Ted Cruz is not eligible.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…”
~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

Cruz Reality – Weasel or Snake

Ted Cruz won’t debate cause he knows he’s wrong

Ted Cruz won’t debate cause he knows he’s wrong.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…”
~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866
(Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)
again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Watch the video below and watch Teddy dodge and spin.

Here is Teddy Cruz’s Canadian Birth Certificate

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Here is the Canadian Law

Persons Born in Canada After December 31, 1946 But Before February 15, 1977

The Former Act stated that a person born after the 31st day of 1946 was a natural-born Canadian citizen if he/she was born in Canada or on a Canadian ship. Section 3(1)(d) preserves this provision of the Former Act by confirming that a person who was a citizen immediately before February 15, 1977 continued to be a Canadian citizen.

 

 

Cruz – His own legal philosophy disqualifies him

Cruz’s law professor on birther issue: His own legal philosophy disqualifies him

 

(CNN)Calling him a “fair weather originalist” and accusing him of “constitutional hypocrisy,” Ted Cruz’s former law school professor is arguing that the Texas senator’s own legal philosophy disqualifies him from serving as president.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard whose students include President Barack Obama and Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan, hammered Cruz over questions about his presidential eligibility because of his birth in Canada, which have been raised by Donald Trump and caused headaches for the Calgary-born Texas senator in the Republican primary.

Appearing on “Anderson Cooper 360” Monday night, Tribe slammed Cruz for his “constitutional hypocrisy.”

He argued that the strict, originalist legal philosophy that Cruz advocates on issues like the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage, and which his potential Supreme Court nominees would likely espouse, should disqualify him from being president.

“Ironically, the kind of justices he says he wants are the ones that say he’s not eligible to run for president,” Tribe argued. “This is important because the way this guy plays fast and loose with the Constitution, he’s a fair weather originalist.”

Cruz’s campaign did not respond to CNN request for comment.

“The issue is — do the kinds of judges that he says he would insist on, the kind who would overrule Roe v. Wade, who don’t believe in gay rights or women’s rights, but who think the Constitution is frozen, if he really believes in their philosophy,” Tribe said. “It’s an antiquated philosophy, but it turns out Ted Cruz drops that when it doesn’t serve his purpose.”

Tribe talked about his experience teaching Cruz at Harvard, and how the two clashed over their conflicting constitutional philosophies. “When Ted Cruz was my student, he was at least consistent,” Tribe explained. “He and I argued back and forth — he ended up acing the class, even though we had different views.”

Tribe continued his criticism in an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Tuesday, similarly slamming Cruz’s constitutional philosophy.

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen,” Tribe wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/laurence-tribe-ted-cruz-birther-argument/index.html

CNN website also has video.

Warning on Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz

The tail might be wagging, but the teeth are snarling.

Those that think Cruz’s wife doesn’t have a plan or motive. Consider this.

Heidi Cruz

As Rush Limbaugh notes, Donald Trump has indeed made illegal immigration into an issue of national debate. The liberal media and now, apparently, the chairman of the Republican Party, have objected to Trump’s comments about criminal aliens. In fact, what Trump has done is jeopardize a plan that goes way beyond mere amnesty for illegals, and which has been on the drawing board for more than a decade. Simply put, the plan is to submerge the sovereignty of the United States of America and politically integrate the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a trilateral entity called the North American Union.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) calls it a “North American Community,” as if the corrupt culture and government of Mexico can be made to mesh with democratic systems in the U.S. and Canada. It means open borders and more criminal aliens in the U.S.

Accuracy in Media attended a conference on the topic of North American economic and political integration in 2007 which included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

The major media won’t report on this because major Republicans and Democrats are in on it. Much of the scheme was hatched under the Republican administration of George W. Bush, but it is now being carried forward by President Obama.

It turns out that Trump has only scratched the surface of a scandal that threatens American sovereignty and would make it easier for millions more Mexicans to come into the U.S. completely legally.

As he takes on the media in tough interviews and holds his ground, even turning the tables on shallow liberals like CNN’s Anderson Cooper and NBC’s Katy Tur, Trump has found one fellow candidate who is sympathetic. Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said, “I think he’s terrific. I think he’s brash. I think he speaks the truth.”

But this is somewhat ironic since Cruz’s wife, Heidi, an investment banker, was a member of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, which in 2005 developed a plan for a “North American Community.” The recommendations of this panel included a multi-billion dollar North American Investment Fund to pull Mexico out of poverty, a North American Border Pass to facilitate travel between the countries, and expansion of “temporary worker programs.”

In 2011, when he was running for the Republican Senate nomination, Cruz had called the CFR “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty.”

In addition to serving as a member of the CFR, Mrs. Cruz, a graduate of Harvard Business School, served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Her CFR bio said, “Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.”

Today she is a managing director at the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs in Houston, but is reportedly on leave from the position while her husband runs for president.

Perhaps the key figure in the CFR task force was the late Robert Pastor, a former official of the Carter administration and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. He wrote the book, Toward a North American Community.

President Clinton had nominated Pastor to be Ambassador to Panama after he had been instrumental in the giveaway of our Panama Canal under Jimmy Carter. But the late Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), the then-powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, prevented a vote on his nomination, on the ground that he was aiding radical forces and undermining U.S. interests in the region. Pastor, who had been an official of the Clinton-Gore campaign, withdrew his nomination.

Pastor tried to play down the idea that a North American Community would develop into anything resembling the European Union, which is regarded by many as a bureaucratic entity that can supersede the sovereignty of its member countries.

But the Bush administration was viewed as facilitating the process of creating a North American economic, social and political entity through a process called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The dangers were so great that the late Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus formed a “Coalition to Block the North American Union” in 2007, to highlight how a North American Union would run roughshod over U.S. constitutional processes and guarantees.

Yet, President Obama has continued the process and, after meeting with the leaders of Mexico and Canada in 2014, said plans for a “North American Transportation Plan” and a “North American Trusted Traveler Program” to facilitate travel and exchanges would go forward. The next North American Leaders’ Summit is scheduled for this fall.

The idea of an annual North American summit meeting was one of the recommendations of that 2005 CFR task force.

Jerry Corsi of WorldNetDaily has noted that the criticism of the CFR put Senator Cruz in an uncomfortable position, since his wife had been a member of the powerful group.

“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America,” Mrs. Cruz said in an additional statement in the CFR report. She also urged that economic investment in the region “be led and perpetuated by the private sector.”

At some point, if Senator Cruz is himself serious about his praise of Donald Trump’s tough stand and comments about illegal immigration, Mrs. Cruz may have to come forward to explain her involvement in the CFR panel’s controversial work.

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/trump-threatens-north-american-union-…

Here is Heidi Cruz’s involvement

HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

Wong Kim Ark says Ted Cruz not eligible

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Annotate this Case

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

No. 18

Argued March 5, 8, 1897

Decided March 28, 1898

169 U.S. 649

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

28 Stat. 111. And it has since been decided, by the same judge who held this appellee to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth therein, that a native of China of the Mongolian race could not be admitted to citizenship under the naturalization laws. In re Gee Hop (1895), 71 Fed.Rep. 274.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case

Page 169 U. S. 703

of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. “A naturalized citizen,” said Chief Justice Marshall,

Reading on;

Twiss, in his work on the Law of actions, says that

“natural allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience to the government of a country wherein a man may happen to have been born, which he cannot forfeit, or cancel, or vary by any change of time or place or circumstance, is the creature of civil law, and finds no countenance in the law of nations, as it is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that law.”

Vol. 1, p. 231.

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Book I, c.19, § 212.

“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.”

And to the same effect are the modern writers, as for instance,

reading on;

In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48, Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, said:

“Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”

and this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992. .

The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents’ merely being domiciled in the country, and it is single and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.

In his Lectures on Constitutional Law, p. 79, Mr. Justice Miller remarked:

“If a stranger or traveler passing through, or temporarily residing in, this country, who has not himself been naturalized and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country

Page 169 U. S. 719

with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.”

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

Rafael Cruz is not eligible to run for the Presidency. 

Rafael (Ted) Cruz disqualifies himself

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm

In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don’t have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”

Cruz: “I would agree.”

Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”

Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”

Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”

Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”

That senate race was highly unusual. Redistricting had caused setbacks delaying the elections and election results. Cruz was running to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who had just retired and vacated her seat. At the originally scheduled time for the primary, Republican Cruz opponent Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst was well ahead in the polls. But by the time the election took place, Cruz had had enough time to slip ahead with more name recognition, in the end defeating his opponent and going on to defeat Democrat Paul Sadler in the general election, becoming only one of three Latino’s in the U.S. Senate.

Rafael (Ted) Cruz was not born in the United States to US Citizen parents. Rafael (Ted) Cruz is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and is ineligible to seek the Ofice of the President of the United States.

UPDATE:

Remember all the form letters that your Senators and Representatives sent out saying Barack Obama was legit, cause he was born in Hawaii.

Well here they are, click on the link below and ask yourself the following question.

If Barack Obama is legit cause he was born in Hawaii, then how is Cruz eligible being born outside the United States in Canada?

https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/cruzfunnyguy/

snippet:

Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: “I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.”

Ted Cruz and the GOP’s new game

Ted Cruz and the GOP are smaching the pedal to the metal and hoping that you don’t catch on. The latest move by Rafael Cruz aka Ted Cruz is to fast and lose with his mommy’s citizenship.

WONDERFUL!

Why? Cause it shows just how deceptive and out of touch with reality that not only the GOP is, but that they (the GOP) and their lapdog media will push any candidate they want regardless of the law.

First off, let’s post mommy Cruz’s birth certificate. Here it is,

mommy cruz’s BC

What does it prove?

It proves that mommy Cruz was in fact born in the US. OK, we are good with that. That still is about mommy and not Rafael (Ted) Cruz, who was born in Canada.

Here again is Rafael (Ted) Cruz’s birth certificate

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

So what we have is Rafael (Ted) Cruz born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a foreign father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (a Cuban national), and a Elanoe Elizabeth Wilson (a US Citizen).

Now, let’s do the math Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz born in a foreign country (Canada) to a foreign father (Cuban) and a US Citizen mother (US Citizen)

(Foreign born) (Foreign father) (US Mother) correct? How does this eqaul the following?

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866

(Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)

again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

again (Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)

Are they equal?

1866; (Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)

1875; (Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)

Rafael (Ted) Cruz (Foreign born) (Foreign father) (US Mother)

No they are not equal. Not even close.

But, let’s look at the United States Constitution.

What are the requirements for being a Representitive or Senator?

Representitive, COTUS

Article 1 sec 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Please make note: a citizen

Now a Senator, COTUS

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Again make note: a citizen

Now, what does the Constitution say about the ‘requirements’ of the President?

President, COTUS

Art 2 sec 1

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Note the difference: a natural born citizen  A higher standatrd.  The Founding Fathers understood the importance of keeping foreign influence out of the highest office and that was only accomplished by a higher standard of qualification. John Jay’s letter to George Washington is point and to the fact.

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Rafael (Ted) Cruz does not meet the higher standard of being a ‘natural born citizen’ as required per the United States Constitution to hold the office of the President of the United States. 

Rafael (Ted) Cruz, does meet the requirement of holding either the office of a Representive or Senator, but not the Presidency, and no amount of warping or twisting ‘mommy’s birth certificate’ will make him one.

So Rafael (Ted) Cruz’s mommy birth certificate proves Rafael (Ted) Cruz is a United States Citizen, but not a United States Natural Born Citizen.

Ted Cruz the ineligible and the 2016 Democrat end Game

Barack Obama’s illegitimate and fabled background has done more to awaken the citizenry to a Constitutional crisis then the global elitist’s would have ever imagined. Why start with Barry Obama? That is where Congress and the Courts have disregarded the not only the ongoing questions, but Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas even stated “We are avoiding that issue”.

Why is this important?

For the past several years, since 2007, Barack Obama has claimed that he was born in Hawaii. Claimed but never proven. There is no hospital that has ever stated Barack Obama was born there. The COLB, Long Form Birth Certificate and even Barack Obama’s selective service registration have been proven to be fraudulent and counterfeit documents. Not to mention that it wasn’t till 2007 that Obama’s fabricated and fairy tale past even began to mention being born in Hawaii. Even video of Michelle Obama calling him a Kenyan and that Kenya is his home country is out on the internet. Numerous court cases all not heard on the merits, cause citizens don’t have standing. But that is going to change.

The Democrat endgame is to ensure that Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee and with the almost guarantee that Ted Cruz is the Republican candidate of choice. The Democrats are going to pull the ‘birther’ game on Cruz. Remember it was Hillary’s campaign that initially questioned Barack Obama.

Hillary had the goods on Barack Obama, but Obama had the all the Clinton skeletons from the closet. Hillary was out smarted and owned.

If Ted Cruz actually wins the nomination and election, the Democrats will use the ‘birther’ option to disqualify Ted Cruz. Fact.

Why do you think that Barack Obama is not worried about his illegal and unconstitutional power grabs? Because he knows the fix is in and will be protected. The Democrats have sold out their party and nation to the globalists, the republicans are also complicit in treason against the United States and its citizens.  John Boehner as speaker of the house did nothing to stop Barack Obama and will go down as a complete failure.  The Courts have outright lied to the American people and the uneducated and dumb down populace is getting what they deserve. The United States Supreme Court does not have the power to legislate morality, however they demand that you recognize same sex marriage, so sodomy is legal, homosexuality has to be tolerated. Morality is whatever the courts say. Bull. They will be going to hell. GOD has stated so, that’s a fact and GOD outweighs their immoral and wicked sinful ways.

Franklin D Roosevelt also packed the courts. Just because the courts say it’s legal, does not make it moral.

Chief Justice John Marshall did when delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Cohen v. Virginia. There he explained:

It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty.

Sounds more like the Supreme Court is derelict in their oath of office for avoiding Obama’s eligibility and allowing the controversy

Chief Justice Marshall further explained in Cohen:

That the United States form, for many and for most important purposes, a single nation has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one, and the government, which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation, and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared that, in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The Constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire — for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate.

As one of the Cruz distracters stated;

“Cruz’s mother was a US citizen by birth, that means that Ted did not need to go thru the naturalization process. He was a natural born citizen, again needing no naturalization process being born to a US citizen. Natural born has nothing to do with birth location, it’s citizenship status of at least one parent and that was his mom.”

Really?  So Ted Cruz was born in a foreign country to a foreign father (Cruz’s father was a Cuban citizen) and the Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly states the following

In 1790, the Congress answered the question about Natural Born Citizens with the Naturalization Act.  The Act reads in part:

 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.

 

There is the definition right there.  Children born abroad whose PARENTS are United States citizens and whose fathers have been resident (meaning a CITIZEN) in the United States are considered natural born citizens. Where does it state anywhere that it’s the citizenship of either parent? It doesn’t.

 

Was Ted Cruz’s PARENTS, United States Citizens?  NO! Was Ted Cruz’s father a United States Citizen? NO!

Here is how Rep. John Bingham (Father of the 14^th Amendment)  explained “natural born citizenship” on the floor of the House on March 9, 1866:

 “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”

 

More from John Bingham;

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.  Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.  That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.  Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

The Unites States Constitution states the following;

Article. II.

Section. 1.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So Ted Cruz fails the Constitutional requirement.

Ted Cruz’s supporters better think twice, they have been forewarned.

Past articles on Ted Cruz’s ineligibility.

Ted Cruz to Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

Tea Party Nation gets it wrong

 

Barack Obama ‘We the Muslims’

Here is Obama in his own words “We the Muslims”

Obama referred to himself as part of the “Muslim Community” at the G20 meeting in Turkey today!
What took so long?

 

 

Common Sense 2015

The hypocrisy of the Conservatives is amazing. For years they have berated, belittled, and ridiculed those that sought Obama bona fides be investigated. Unless as a conservative ostrich with your head in the sand, you know this is a fact. The likes of the Republican establishment have all but handed Obama everything he desires even if it goes against the United States Constitution or the will of the people. The Republicans were voted into majority the last election to stop the illegal act known as Obamacare. In mere weeks they folded, abdicated their campaign pledges, their sworn duty to uphold the law and not only caved, but surrendered the nation to a tyrant.

The Tea Party trolls and the Obama enablers will hail this as a ‘birther’ argument vs. what is really is; a Constitutional requirement. As the United States Constitution is a social contract between the governed and the government.

John Boehner has proven what a worthless POS he is and what his leadership consists of, nothing but a whinny ass.

But fear not the Republicans have worked out the plan with the Democrats to completely ruin this country after the 2016 election.  Read on till the end, and you will be how.

Hillary will not be the candidate, as her baggage will be dragged from here to eternity and everything from Vince Foster, Travelgate, the vast right wing conspiracy, bimbogate, Benghazi will be brought up in a never ending barrage to remind folks of the unethical, I’m above the law, the Clintons think they are. What difference does it make? Ask the widow of Ambassador Stevens or the others murdered at Benghazi, or better yet ask Stevens himself. Oh wait you can’t, but it might matter to him.

The Republican leadership has decided that it’s their turn to promote an ineligible candidate, just to prove that any party can get away with it.

The issue here is that there is ‘requirements’ for the Office of the Presidency. What are these?

You might want to investigate the United States Constitution, Article 2.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

At no point, even after numerous attempts the above requirements have never been altered or amended.  These attempts have been documented on numerous sites and need not be listed here.

Currently the Naturalization Act of 1790 is being peddled as authorities hope for the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’. But they fail as they misinterpret the meaning of ‘citizens’ to mean either or, which is not the case.

So, let me get this straight, the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly states: “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”

How does a Cuban national equate to a US Citizen when the 1790 act clearly states ‘citizen’s (plural)? Even with a US mother, that does not meet the standard of a Natural Born Citizen, which the founders knew as ‘born in country to CITIZEN Parents (plural) or even as the United States Supreme Court stated in Minor vs Happersett.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Now you have the same folks saying the Supreme Court has never ruled on what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is. Really, what not look at the numerous decisions where they have stated what it is. Why does the United States Supreme Court have to rule on what it has already stated in several cases? But facts ignored are still facts. I don’t have to be appointed to SCOTUS to be able to read their decisions.

Those who somehow believe the 14th Amendment “proves their case” should be told that Congressman John Bingham—who authored that amendment—said on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1862, “All from other lands, who by the terms of laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty [italics added], are natural born citizens.” Read that again and let it sink in. In 1862, the members of Congress understood that a natural born citizen was someone born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens [italics added] became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” That is, there was agreement by all legal scholars in 1885 that the term natural born citizen meant “born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents.”

Maybe I should post all the relevant cases starting in 1812 with The Venus, where John Jay United States Supreme Court Justice stated the following. (Remember it was John Jay that wrote to George Washington about the requirement of a Natural Born Citizen, so I think the person that wrote it, who was also our first Supreme Court Justice, knew what he was talking about.) or little did know that John Jay (our first United States Supreme Court justice) also wrote the following in the New York State Ratification of the United States Constitution,  (Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788. New York was the eleventh state to do so. The assent of Virginia and of New York was seen as essential to the success of the Constitution, and though they were tenth and eleventh to ratify, it is generally agreed that until they both ratified, succes was in doubt. New York’s ratification message is the longest by far, and includes a declaration of rights and many suggested changes to the Constitution. The following text is taken from the Library of Congress’s copy of Elliot’s Debates.)

That no persons, except natural-born citizens, or such as were citizens on or before the 4th day of July, 1776, or such as held commissions under the United States during the war, and have at any time since the 4th day of July, 1776, become citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be freeholders, shall be eligible to the places of President, Vice-President, or members of either house of the Congress of the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html

The Venus 1812

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 inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants.

Children follow the condition of their father.

Ted Cruz qualifies as a Senator, but he’s not eligible for the Presidency.

Sad thing is Cruz’s staffers refuse to respond to inquiries for information about the CRBA application.

How about this

Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.J.Res. 88

JULY 24, 2000

“The natural-born citizenship requirement is unjust and discriminatory. It is inevitable that one day soon a candidate will rise in America who was not born in this country that the American people would like to be President of the United States. Let’s amend the Constitution now so that all children who grow up in America can dream of one day becoming President. Let’s bring hope of equality in citizenship to all the children who are raised in America.”

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM

Note the “was not born in this country” part…

Same with Marco Rubio, he was born in 1971 to parents from Cuba, who never naturalized till 1974, after Marco was born, again born to foreign parents.

Again, Bobby Jindal born in the US, but to foreign parents.

The game plan is for both the Republicans and their Democrat trolls to push the ineligible candidates and to finally have the Supreme Court rule on what they have already stated, they are avoiding the issue. Hence the Republican candidate that says all the right thing’s, is ultimately disqualified and the Democrat long shot, Elizabeth Warren (Obama II) is paraded into the White House. Not only as progressive as Obama, controlled by the progressives, but they finally have a female in the White House to usher in the collapse of the United States.

Think this is crazy?

For years, the media have claimed that Obama is a natural born citizen BECAUSE he was “born” in Hawaii. They never said, well even if he was born in Kenya he’s still a Natural Born Citizen. It would have made the Birther argument trivial in nature. But that’s no longer the case. Now we know Cruz was born elsewhere, and now we’re being told that it still doesn’t matter.

What else will not matter, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment?

You decide, they are playing you for the fool and giving away the bank and future to illegal’s and you sit and can’t even figure out what simple words mean that were fully understood 230 years ago as common sense.

 Common Sense 2015 – Tea Party Nation

Tea Party Nation gets it wrong

Last week Tea Party Nation published the following;

Tea Party Nation is WRONG and lying.

(Between their misrepresentation, I will correct them in red)

When Barack Obama came on the scene running for President in 2008, a number of people began to question his eligibility to be President.  The left wing media dismissed those people as “birthers.”  What the left wing media wants most people to forget is that Hillary Clinton was the original birther.

 

Now that Ted Cruz is running for office, a number of people are popping up, claiming he is not eligible to be President.

 It is an important question.

 Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?

 The Constitution of the United States is very specific.  No one but a “natural born citizen” may become President.  That mercifully spares us from people like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 But what is a natural born citizen?

 The Constitution is silent on a definition of a natural born citizen.  Those who attack Cruz as not being eligible and even those who make the same attack on Obama, like to cite an 18^th century text and a couple of Supreme Court decisions.

 There is a specific hierarchy that is used in determining the meaning of provisions in the Constitution.  The hierarch goes like this.   First we look within the pages or as attorneys like to say, within the four corners of the document for a meaning.  If there is no definition there, then we look to Congressional statutes and then to court decisions.

 

In 1790, the Congress answered the question about Natural Born Citizens with the Naturalization Act.  The Act reads in part:

 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.

 There is the definition right there.

 Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.

 This is where Tea Party Nation is out right lying. “Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

The 1790 Act is clear;  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.

Get it: And the children of citizens of the United States

TED CRUZ was NOT BORN TO CITIZEN PARENTS, his father was a Canadain citizen, and CRUZ was born in Canada. 

This act was introduced in Congress in 1790.  That was three years after the Constitution was drafted.  If that definition of a natural born citizen is not accurate, the men who wrote the Constitution a mere three years earlier would have stood and said something about it.

The United States Supreme Court in numerous cases stated

 The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

 

Since some of those men were in Congress, it is unlikely such a bill would have passed at all.

 

The facts in the case of Ted Cruz, unlike that of Barack Obama, are not shrouded in mystery.  Cruz was born of an American mother and though his father was not an American citizen at the time, he had resided in the United States.

 That makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.

WRONG, Tea Party Nation is wrong and lying.

Sorry TED, you are NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and you are NOT eligilbe to be President. 

Read more here on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen

Kenyan official: Obama born here, “not even a native American.”

During debate over the draft of a new Kenyan constitution, James Orengo, the country’s minister of lands and a member of parliament for the Ugenya constituency, cited America’s election of a Kenyan-born president as an example of what can be accomplished when diverse peoples unite:

The Kenyan lawmaker told the nation’s parliament last month that Barack Obama was born in Africa and is therefore “not even a native American.”

The full quote; “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence.” It appears that the Kenyan Government has changed the location of the file.
Here is an updated link:

http://www.bunge.go.ke/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=24&Itemid=

UPDATE: The Kenyan Government is scrubbing this document. I have uploaded it here LINK

The statement is on page 31 of the PDF document. Also when did the United States do away with exclusion? What exclusion? The Natural Born Citizen clause? When was this done?

So who is James Orengo?

James Orengo, (James Jimmy-Jimmy Owadgi Adhiambo Orengo) is a lawyer and former presidential candidate in Kenya. Orengo has since been sworn in as a Minister for Lands in the new Coalition Government formed by the National Accord Act of 2008. As of 2007 he is still the SDP chairman. The party supported Raila Odinga of Orange Democratic Movement at the 2007 general elections. Raila Odinga is the first cousin of Barack Obama.

Additional information and previous posts of Kenyan officials stating Obama is Kenyan

Kenyan Parliament says Obama is Kenyan after the 2008 election

Kenyan Historian says Obama is Kenyan

Michelle Obama syas Kenya is Obama’s ‘HOME COUNTRY’

Obama – The Racist Agitator

EXCLUSIVE: LEAKED VIDEO SHOWS OBAMA RAILING AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE DURING KENYA TRIP

“I’m deeply saddened that whites are superior”

Never before seen video set to be released soon shows President Barack Obama railing against white people during a 1990 trip to Kenya.

The footage, filmed and narrated by Obama’s sister Auma, shows the president on his first trip to Kenya as a young man in his 20s. Michelle Obama also accompanied her husband on the trip.

WeSearchr’s Chuck Johnson exclusively revealed to Infowars Obama’s comments in the video, which include him denouncing white privilege.

Obama says in the film: “I’m deeply saddened by a sense that whites are still superior in this country, in some sense, that if you sit at a restaurant, they’re served before a Kenyan is served. If you go through customs, a white person is going to have an easier time going through customs.”

At one point in the movie Obama says he has “a lot at stake” in building “a strong black country in Kenya.”

“The film is full of insights into Barack Obama’s psychology and worldview, especially with regards to the way he sees his family in Kenya and black-white race relations,” according to Johnson. “How much of a black nationalist do you think Obama is? What do you think he thinks of white people?”

The comments will provide further ammunition for Obama critics who claim that the president has used the office to stoke racial division, especially given his sympathies towards ‘Black Lives Matter’, a group whose ideological inspiration is a convicted cop killer on the FBI’s ‘Most Wanted Terrorists’ list.

Johnson will release the clip in full and it will be featured exclusively on Infowars when he crowd funds the cost of his private eye to obtain the footage. Expect that to happen soon.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-leaked-video-shows-obama-railing-against-white-people-during-kenya-trip/

ISLAM WAS BANNED FROM THE USA IN 1952

ISLAM WAS BANNED FROM THE USA IN 1952 but Obama doesn’t want you to know that, nor does he respect or uphold US law.

 

The law prohibits entry of “Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.” It also prohibits the entry of Aliens who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the US or of all forms of law, and Aliens who publish, circulate and distribute materials teaching or advocating the overthrow by force, violence or other unconstitutional means of the US Government or of all forms of law.

Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principle subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited. It also prohibits those who distribute literature that advocates the overthrow of our country, which would include the Koran.

In fact, there are many verses in the Koran that command Islamists to kill those who do not submit to allah and the prophet. If Congress so desired to hold the White House accountable to the current immigration of refugees (which also must comply with the law), it has the Immigration and Nationality Act to cite. The Administration is breaking that law. The question is “Does Congress have the political will to do something about it?”

To read the law, go to this link and scroll down to Chapter 2, Section 212:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization and nationality for the United States.

That Act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of aliens to the US and remains in effect today.

Among the many issues it covers, one in particular found in Chapter 2, Section 212, is the prohibition of entry in to the US if the alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by force, violence or by other unconstitutional means.”

This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States but this law is being ignored by the White House.

Islamic immigration to the United States would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam which is antithethical to the United States government, the Constitution and to the Republic.

All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.

Now the politically correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the United States because Islam is a ‘religion.’

Whether it is a ‘religion’ is immaterial because the law states that aliens who are affiliated with any organization that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited.

Public Law 414 – June 27, 1952

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act

Source: http://beforeitsnews.com/

Cruz supporters and a repealed Act of 1790

Over on the Mark Levin’s Fan Club of Intelligent, Thinking Women (and Men) on Facebook,
a poster posted the Naturalization Act of 1790 as justification for Ted Cruz being eligible. I posted the following response.

I decided to reply with an indepth analysis and prove that anyone using the 1790 Naturalization Act to justify Cruz’s eligibilty is in error and is complete nonsense.

Citing a law that was repealed five years later is simply childish and shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.

I will try and keep this simple so you can look up the relevant words and hopefully educate yourself.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was quite clear.

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” It specifies that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Then five years later the Naturalization Act of 1795 was enacted and omitted the ‘Natural Born’ equation.

The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by omitting the term “natural born.” The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person[s].” It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of “good character” to read “good moral character.”

That is your first mistake by citing a law that was repealed and then the Naturalization Act of 1795 was again repealed in 1802. But even citing the Naturalization Act proves Ted Cruz is not eligible, as in that act even being born overseas meant you still needed US Citizen parents, plural and not singular. The citizenship of the mother is not even part of the equation and never was till years later. So attempting to say a singular (parent) is not a reality. Doubt it, read on. Also the Act is quite clear and distinct “the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”. Where is the word mother used? It isn’t!

A quick review of the terms “Natural Born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in the United States Constitution.

The United States Constitution is quite clear on the Constitutional Requirements of the Presidency.

United States Constitution Article. II. Section. 1.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Note the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’

Referring to the Constitutional Requirements of the Senate and Representatives;

United States Constitution Art 1 Sec 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Note the Term ‘Citizen’

United States Constitution Article 1 Sec 3       

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Note the term “Citizen’

The terms ‘Citizen’ and ‘Natural Born Citizen’ are not the same and not interchangeable. A Natural Born Citizen is a higher standard.

The ‘first’ time that a woman was able to keep her citizenship was with the Cable Act of 1922.

The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage.(It is also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act). Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.

Former immigration laws prior to 1922 did not make reference to the alien husband’s race. However, The Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to an “alien eligible to naturalization.” At the time of the law’s passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for US citizenship. As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies and allowed women to retain their US citizenship after marrying a foreigner who was not Asian. Thus, even after the Cable Act become effective, any woman who married an Asian alien lost her US citizenship, just as under the previous law.

The Cable Act also had other limitations: a woman could keep her US citizenship after marrying a non-Asian alien if she stayed within the United States. However, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years, she could still lose her right to US nationality.

ln 1931, an amendment allowed females to retain their citizenship even if they married an Asian. In 1936, the Cable Act was repealed.

So under US Law since the founding of our nation till the Cable Act of 1922, the woman lost her US Citizenship and took the condition of her husband.  Fact, with the exception of the Asian requirement.

Then in 1934,  The Citizenship Act of 1934 was enacted which for the ‘first’ time allowed a mother to transmit any US Citizenship to her children. So citing the Naturalization Act of 1790 or 1795 is in complete error, as it wasn’t till 1922 that the mother was recognized as separate citizenship and then it was 1934 before she could even confer citizenship upon her children.

Here is the The Citizenship Act of 1934

Prior to May 24, 1934, children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were United States citizens, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth unless the father had never “resided” in the United States prior to the child’s birth. In the absence of a specific definition of “resided”, the Immigration and Naturalization Service took the position that even a temporary sojourn by the U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to comply with this requirement.

Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child’s birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of “resided” continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.

So claiming that the Naturalization Act of 1790 or even the 1795 act which removed the elevated Natural Born equivalency bestowed any citizenship from the mother is untrue and the above proves it. To that pointy in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

Even if when Ted Cruz was born in 1970, Ted Cruz’s mother was required by law to register the birth with the US Consulate and file a CRBA.

There is serious doubt that was ever done and that being the case. Ted Cruz’s condition at birth is a Canadian citizen (documented by his Canadian Birth certificate) and Cuban citizenship from his father. Ted’s father Rafael Cruz was naturalized in 2005.

 

 

 

Scot Sheely – Deeply offensive

As readers here will recall, a Tea Party Nation moderator compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler in a thread named ‘Dump Trump’

The moderator/poster included several remarks that refered to Donald Trump as Donald Drumpf. The posting was so offensive that the poster Scot Sheely went back and heavily edited it.

That being now documented and included in another IRS filing. Here is what a InfoWars posting states;

So since Scot Sheely’s ‘deeply offensive’ Donald Drumpf hit piece was exactly what is described above. Shouldn’t Scot Sheely be banned from TPN as well?

 

 

Trump campaign notified of unethical conduct

The Trump campaign has been notified and passed all relevant material posted here, concerning the unethical conduct at Tea Party Nation.

Specifically the targeting, banning, and deleting of individuals by moderators that do not support Ted Cruz.

Yes, this is a fact.

Allow me to explain.

As some of my followers know, Sandpoint Idaho is a small community. My father-in-law grew up there, owned a business there and raised a family there. His roots there are deep along with his family.

Here is a picture of my brother in law, my father in law and a high school friend, named Chuck.

The above picture is my father in law and Chuck Heath during the Spokane Bloomsday festival in the 1980’s. Whenever Chuck gets to Sandpoint old friends always get together.

My father in law went went to school and college with Chuck. They have been friends for over 60 years. Chuck married Sally. Here is a picture of Chuck and Sally. (yes, gotten off the internet)

Chuck is a great Packer fan. By the way, my father in law also played high school football with Jerry Kramer #64 of the Packers.  Wahoo!

Anyways, Chuck and Sally had a daughter named Sarah, born in Bonner General. After a few years, the Heath’s moved to Alaska, in a sleepy little town called Wasilla. Where Sarah grew up and married a young man named Todd Palin. Yes, a close friend of the family is Sarah Palin, the same Sarah Palin, who endorses Donald Trump.

My mother in law is also good friends of Chuck and Sally Heath, and so is another family friend Diana, who was also married to wonderful man, whom my father in law played high school football with. Not to mention my wife’s uncle, Terry’s brother Kenny and his wife. It’s a small world after all. Isn’t it!

I wonder what is going to happen when the Trump campaign reviews all the material posted here and then some not posted, about what is happening to their supporters.

BTW; since speaking with the IRS on several of the complaints. It is not neccessary to be directly involved, and as such multiple more complaints will be filed over the other people banned and deleted over at TPN and other sites. Below is one site that likes my material and research.

Some one thought they were being clever and decided that personal objectives overruled ethical conduct and IRS regulations. They however didn’t realize they screwed the pooch and then lied to cover it up. They also thought they would get away with it or that people would just sit by idly by and not do anything about it. They were wrong. Oh, how they are wrong.

Cruz is a funny guy, should be doing standup comedy

Remember when people started questioning Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility? Representitives and Senators started form mailing their constituents, deflecting Barack Obama’s failure to meet the United States Constitutional requirements, by claiming that since Barack Obama was born (claimed, never proven) in Hawaii, that means he’s a Natural-Born Citizen.

Read these excuses by the elected Rep’s. Every single one evades the Constitutional requirements by claiming since Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s eligible.

Highlighted for the reader.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: “President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.”
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: “The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu.”

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: “President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: “I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.”

U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: “As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu

U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: “President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama’s case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an “application for emergency stay” filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.”

Sen. Mark. R. Warner, D-Va., “The facts have consistently shown that President Obama was born in the United States. As a natural-born American citizen, he is fully eligible to serve as president of our country.”

So if they based Obama’s eligibility soley based on being born ‘in’ the country, by their standards Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is not eligible.

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Who Is The Real Heidi Nelson Cruz?

 

Roger Stone

The Daily Caller’s Men’s Fashion Editor

As the nation says “Goodbye” to Nancy Reagan – a woman widely admired as the quintessential political wife – we pause to ask: Who is Heidi Nelson Cruz?

Watching any Ted Cruz political advertisement featuring his wife and two young daughters, we could easily get the impression that Heidi Nelson Cruz, like Nancy Reagan, is a devoted wife dedicated to making sure she and her husband occupy the White House.

The New York Times in an article published on Jan. 18, described Heidi Cruz as “a political wife,” who had become a force in her husband’s presidential contest, “an all-purpose surrogate and strategist to be deployed as often as possible.”

Heidi is herself a high-powered Bush insider, who served as deputy to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice before signing on as a Deputy to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, neocon stalwart and former Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Zoellick wired a cushy job for Heidi when she landed at Goldman Sachs as a partner. Goldman would, of course, go on to make a secret $1 million loan to fund Ted’s U.S. Senate campaign while both Cruzes lied about the source of funds being Heidi’s retirement savings.

 Yet, investigating more deeply, Ted and Heidi Cruz have had a sometimes troubled relationship punctuated by bouts of physical separation that began when two young Christians on the fringe of protestant evangelicalism met while working on the Bush-Cheney 2000 presidential campaign.

Ted and Heidi began their married years as a Washington-insider “power couple,” before Ted left Heidi to continue her investment banking career in Washington, while Ted returned to Texas to pursue his political ambitions.

A Pentecostal marries a Seventh-day Adventist

Ted, who first came to Jesus Christ as a Pentecostal, was born in Canada in 1970, to two parents who met in Louisiana and re-married in 1969, after their first marriages ended in divorce. Ted’s father, today a Cuban-born preacher, moved to Calgary, Alberta, with his second wife – Ted’s mother – to work in the Canadian oil fields.

Ted’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She met Rafael in Louisiana where she was working as a computer programmer in the oil industry. Eleanor had first moved south to Houston, Texas to study mathematics at Rice University following the breakup of her first marriage and the tragic death of her first child, born to the husband she divorced.

When Ted was three years old, his father got on an airplane and flew back to Texas, abandoning his wife and son.

“When I was 3, my father decided to leave my mother and me,” Ted occasionally explains. “We were living in Calgary at the time, he got on a plane and he flew back to Texas, and he decided he didn’t want to be married anymore and he didn’t want to be a father to his 3-year-old son.”

Eventually reconciled in Texas, Rafael and Eleanor Darragh Cruz continued their troubled marriage through the 1970s, plagued by alcohol and infidelity, with a divorce in 1997, two years after Ted finished law school at Harvard.

Heidi’s family history, while less raucous, starts with her being born in 1972, to missionary parents in San Luis Obispo, where her mother, a dental hygienist, meet her father, a practicing dentist.

Raised a Seventh-day Adventist, Kenya was one of the many countries young Heidi remembered as home as she traveled around the world with her preacher parents on their missionary quest.

“Beltway” years

In 2001, Ted found himself directing the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, having ruffled feathers of top Bush-Cheney political operatives by his largely overstated participation in the 2000 Florida recount contest, where truly he played a peripheral role at best. He did, however, recruit a certain John Roberts to the Bush Team. The rest, including Obamacare, is history.

Heidi, who began her career in D.C. as a political intern, emerged more successfully from her Bush-Cheney experience, landing a job working for Condoleezza Rice as an economic policy adviser for the National Security Council in the White House.

At the White House, Heidi served as special assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, who as U.S. Trade Representative had brokered virtually every free trade deal since serving as U.S. negotiator during the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations that led to the formation of the World Trade Organization.

Zoellick, whose biography includes credentials as president of the World Bank, served as vice chairman of Goldman Sachs from 2006-2007, where he crossed paths again with Heidi who he helped  land a job with Goldman Sachs as a managing director investing money for high net worth clients.Heidi also signed up at the Council on Foreign Relations where she chaired a group advocating a North American Accord which would surrender American sovereignty to Canada and Mexico

Goldman Sachs was also the Wall Street investment bank whose job offer Ted Cruz had turned down after graduating from Harvard Law School.

Goldman Sachs resurfaces in the Cruz family saga in January 2016, when the New York Times revealed Ted Cruz had failed to report a $500,000 Goldman Sachs loan that helped him win election to the U.S. Senate in 2012.

A 2005 police report

By 2003, Ted Cruz had returned to Texas where then Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had appointed him to serve in the Solicitor General’s office, marking the start of Cruz’s political career.

In an article dated March 18, 2015, BuzzFeed reporters McKay Coppins and Megan Apper published a heavily redacted police report that described a bizarre incident involving Heidi Cruz in 2005.

According to the police report, around 10 p.m. on the night of Aug. 22, 2005, the Austin Police Department dispatched Officer Joel Davidson to an intersection a couple of miles west of the Texas City’s downtown.

“A passerby had called to report that a woman in a pink shirt was sitting on the ground near the MoPac Expressway with her head in her hands, and no sign of a vehicle nearby,” Coopins and Apper wrote. “When the officer arrived, he found the woman on a swath of grass between an onramp and the freeway. She said her name was Heidi Cruz.”

Officer Davidson next proceeded to question Heidi Cruz, whose husband, Ted, was then serving as Texas solicitor general.

“He [Officer Davidson] asked what she was doing by the expressway,” Coopins and Apper continued. “(S)he replied that she lived on nearby Hartford Street, and ‘had been walking around the area.’ She went on to tell Davidson that she was not on any medication and that she hadn’t been drinking, aside from ‘two sips of a margarita an hour earlier with dinner.’ He wrote that he ‘did not detect any signs of intoxication.’”

“A bout of depression”

While the heavily redacted police report did not claim the incident involved a suicide attempt, Officer Davidson did put into writing that he believed Cruz was a “danger to herself,” noting that he found her sitting 10 feet away from heavy traffic, unable to explain what she was doing there.

Evidently, Heidi Cruz did not take well to what appears to have been a Ted Cruz demand that she leave her lucrative Goldman Sachs job in Washington to join him in Texas, where she could play her expected role as “wife” when Ted began laying serious plans to run for political office.

“About a decade ago, when Mrs. Cruz returned from D.C. to Texas and faced a significant professional transition, she experienced a brief bout of depression,” a Ted Cruz advisor, in response to a BuzzFeed request for comment on the story.

“Like millions of Americans, she came through that struggle with prayer, Christian counseling, and the love and support of her husband and family,” statement from Cruz’s office continued.

The couple’s first daughter, Caroline, was born in 2008. She is currently on a leave of absence without pay from her position as region head for the southwest region in the investment management division of Goldman Sachs in Houston.

In a 2013 interview, Ted’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, who lives in the same condo complex in Houston as do Ted, Heidi, and their two daughters, explained she helps raise the children with the live-in nanny responsible for carrying for them.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/14/who-is-the-real-heidi-nelson-cruz/#ixzz434UuotwU