Tea Party Nation – the den of hypocrisy

TPNBanner3hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity;

Tea Party Nation has once again proven to be the den of hypocrisy and false patriots.

In a debate where the Cruzbots have once again proven to be wrong and decietful to the point of outright lying and misrepresenting the facts.

One moderator stands out as the hypocrite that he is and exposes why Tea Party Nation is listed as a Hate Group.

Intelligence Files: Tom DeWeese”. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved August 8, 2012.

Here is an set of images that I posted.

First off Glenn Beck stated that Trump supporters were Brown Shirts a clear indication and reference to Adolf Hitler’s group.

10h0g6

Hence I referenced Glenn Beck for as the propaganda minister for the Cruz campaign.

In the next image, I presented Ted Cruz as NWO as numerous references to Ted Cruz and his wife Heidi as the President of the North American Union. Google Heidi Cruz and learn that she worked for the CFR and North American Union, the destruction of the American sovereignty. But then the Cruzbots over at Tea Party Nation are the low information voters that Cruz needs.

10gy75

Not to mention that thiose posting there were in total denial of Glenn Beck’s threats of stabbing Trump. After Scot Sheely denied and tried to cover for Glenn Beck I posted the following video.

Replies to This Discussion

They say that Trump supporters are diehard, but Glen Beck with his threats towards Trump show just exactly how delusional the Teddy Cruz supporters are. That the media is pushing Cruz and Rubio, should only expose how corrupt the media is. The peoiple are waking up to the fact that the politicans both the democrats and republicans are playing the American people towards their own destructive ends and one reason for Trumps popularity is that he is not a politician and the GOP elite is very paranoid of losing their base. A base that they have lied to and the people are not buyinmg their crap again.

WOW!!!!…beck is threatening trump?????…HUH…could you show some examples please????

and how is the media pushing cruz and rubio when trump has gotten 3 times more air time????

trump is no more than a circus clown and his record proves it!!!!

I would say since you have a desperate desire to just shoot your mouth off with a bunch of lies and falsehoods while talking about how great trump is kinda discribes the  typical diehard trump

the Secret Service visited Beck cause it was widely reported

But here you go.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/breaking-secret-service-vis…

Updated Link direct to youtube

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/04/glenn-beck-if-i-got-close-enough-…

Updated link direct to youtube

your kidding right????  beck was joking about stabbing his producer Stu…and if you would pay attention you would know that….

this is one of those things that makes the daily caller out to be another progressive bias media sources…and they are the only ones that didnt retract the story

no Beck threatened Trump.

Glenn Beck offered a rather violent answer Friday to what he would have done in the shoes of Donald Trump’s opponents on the debate stage Thursday night, or so it would have seemed.

“I don’t know what I would have done if I were sitting in their shoes. I can’t say it that way,” Beck said on his radio program, according to audio posted by the Daily Caller. “If I were on the stage, I would have said, ‘Have you been listening to him tonight? Have you been listening to what I say about him? I believe these things.'”

Beck then went on to say, “if I were close enough, and had a knife, really, I mean, the stabbing just wouldn’t stop.”

Beck’s co-host, Stu Burguiere, clarified on Twitter that Beck was speaking to him, not to Trump. “I mocked his error and he jokingly threatened me,” Burguiere tweeted.

The radio host has supported Ted Cruz’s candidacy, announcing his endorsement in January.

this was and is a false story from the start …or you would have posted the audio of it …whats this fixation with beck anyway…hes a nobody

now if you want to jump over to the DUMP TRUMP thread I can show you several videos of trump actually threatening a wide range of people

I heard the original audio the day it was broadcast.

I also heard the replay of it later on during the next broadcast.

I also heard Beck at CPAC explain on video exactly what he meant.

At no time did he refer to stabbing any of the candidates.

If you actually listened to the entire audio clip of that segment, or at least more than the tiny little soundbite that the liberal media has posted,

you would absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Glenn Beck

was referring to ‘stabbing’ his producer and co-host ‘Stu’ (real name is Steve)

and not a single one of the candidates.

Perhaps you’ve never listened to the Glenn Beck show before,

as a lot of liberals just don’t do that kind of thing.

I fully understand if you were actually tuned into the Alan Colmes show instead. That would make perfect sense of your situation.

Next time, try actually finding the original, unedited audio and listening to it before you pontificate on a situation that you only heard lamestream liberal media soundbites for.

Thanks.

posted the audio

But since you wanted audio, it’s all over net and people are disgusted with Beck

video

talk about desperate trump supporters…pathetic

Thanks for the video nobarack! Beck is way over the top isn’t he? Spoke of repeatedly slashing the leading candidate for President. On hundreds of radio stations

And Cruz shares a stage with this nut-job? Unbelievable. Cruz must really be hurting for support.

I listened to Beck this morning while driving through the state of Ohio. He was on his best behavior. Didn’t once call Tea Partiers who support Trump bigots, racists or anything like that today!

I note that Cruz and his people berate Trump because David Duke of the KKK supports Trump. Not Trump supporting Duke, but Duke likes Trump.

That’s Trump’s fault? Yet Cruz hangs around with Glenn Beck. And that’s just fine with the Cruz people!

Now, who really are the low information voters?

 That being said Scot Sheely’s panties were in wad and after being exposed as the liar that he is, decided to ban me.

Here is the text of what he claims is the violation. I highlighted in RED what he claims is the violation.

http://www.teapartynation.com/main/authorization/termsOfService

You agree that you will not post, email or make available any content or use this Network:

-in a manner that is libelous or defamatory, or in a way that is otherwise threatening, abusive, violent, harassing, malicious or harmful to any person or entity, or invasive of another’s privacy; 

-Post any content that depicts or contains rape, extreme violence, murder, bestiality, incest, or other similar content; 

Post irrelevant content, repeatedly post the same or similar content or otherwise impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the Network’s infrastructure;

Posting images of Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, Nazi swastikas or any other similar violent, anti-Semitic imagery or lingo in the manner in which you posted such content is a legitimate cause for banning. Discussing the name Hitler is radically different from posting Nazi images, including Hitler. Including images of the WWII Nazis in the context of an original new thread discussing the holocaust or a similar event is acceptable if it is topical, timely and relevant. Attempting to tie those images into a current political candidate, regardless who it is, is unacceptable.

Don’t message us and ask why you were banned, this is the only explanation you need.

I will give you one more chance to participate after a one month cooldown ‘timeout’ period. You will not be able to log back in until 4-10-16 @ 4:00 PM EDT.

Your activities will be closely monitored once you are able to participate again a month from now.

This will be your final warning before being permanently banned.

Here is Scot Sheely’s post concerning the images posted.

Reply by Scot Sheely 2 minutes ago

Just a quick FYI, guys, I deleted those offensive Nazi images that were posted in this thread and gave the member who posted them a one month time out, as he had been warned about doing that and other issues as well.

So you will know, saying that a politician like Barack Obama, for example, is acting like Hitler is ok, but to actually show vivid images of Hitler not in the context of a thread that is speaking about the holocaust or a similar event is not acceptable.

Please, I know that we are all very passionate about the election and our chosen candidates this year, but showing Anti-Semitic, Nazi or KKK types of images are not allowed here.

Thanks, I hope that clarifies things a bit. If you feel inclined to do so, you can review the TOS (Terms Of Service) HERE. There are several items listed that pertain to this type of thing without spelling it out verbatim.

Hope that helps avoid problems or confusion for anyone else. We appreciate everyone who posts here, even if they disagree with you or someone else, but racist or hate groups or similar imagery are strictly verboten.

I would like to now expose Tea Party Nation for the hypocrisy that it maintains.

Here is a composite of several images in the Tea Party Nation image library; Mind you this is just a sample but it shows Nazi symbols, swastikas, and others with nothing being done. Because if they contain a target that they agree with, then it’s OK, but it anything that exposes their hypocrisy, then that is another matter.

TPNImages

Note once again that Scot Sheely has stated Posting images of Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, Nazi swastikas or any other similar violent, anti-Semitic imagery or lingo in the manner in which you posted such content is a legitimate cause for banning.

What a buch of crap. After several email attempts to Judson Phillips, owner of Tea Party Nation and receiving no response and filing a formal complaint against Scot Sheely and demanding that he himself be banned for he himslf has posted images (Eric Holder in the jail outfit) with the Soviet Hammer and scickle.

Below is one of the emails that I sent to Judson Phillips.

As have either disregarded my emails concerning Scot Sheely’s actions. I have decided to supply you with additional information that unless take the appropriate action, I will be transmitting to various Patriot groups exposing the hypocritical and unethical values of Tea Party Nation and it’s moderators.

 

There, that should clear up what a hypocrite Scot Sheely is. A Cruzbot roach that is thin skinned and unable to handle being proven wrong.

Here is Tea Party Nations blog postings;

TPNPage TPNPage2

 

As a final note, Tea Party Nation has the honor of being listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and is the only Tea Party-related group to be noted as such.

So go ahead Scot Sheely. I will be updating all social media with your hypocrisy  exposed and I have passed this along to Judson and Shelly Phillips, it’s out on several sites and your soft underbelly of being a shill for an illegal candidate.

Have fun. I’ll be posting. Keep watching.

I am also filing a IRS complaint as Tea Party Nation solicits contributions and Scot Sheely’s actions as documented about are in violation of not only TPN posted Terms of Service, they are also in violation of internet protocal.

TPNContribute

Have fun Scot Sheely

 

Tea Party Nation – the den of hypocrisy

Scot Sheely named in IRS Complaint against Tea Party Nation

Scot Sheely named in second IRS complaint

Scot Sheely attempts to cover up

Cruz family mentally ill?

TedAnointedOne

Cruz Father: Ted Cruz “Anointed” To “Bring the Spoils of War to the Priests”

 

what a sick family

 

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

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 Ted-CruzCanadianCitizenship

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 is no Constitutionalist

Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz claims to stand for the United States Constitution. Nothing is further from the truth.

TedBustedB

As reported by MSN

(Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz asked a federal judge in Texas to throw out a challenge to his eligibility to serve if he wins, saying there’s no legal basis to question his status as a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.

The Houston (CONSTITUTIONAL) birther challenge is the highest profile of several court cases filed after Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump publicly questioned Cruz’s eligibility when the Texas senator began to narrow the billionaire’s lead in campaign polls. Judges haven’t ruled in birther cases filed in Illinois and Florida. Cruz last week urged a state judge in Chicago to dismiss the case there, saying the complaint was improperly served by e-mail.

Cruz’s lawyer said challenges to a candidate’s eligibility are premature during the primary-voting season and must wait until he’s actually elected president, when that question should be resolved by the electoral college and Congress, “not this court.”

Well, there you have it yourself.

Quote: “challenges to a candidate’s eligibility are premature during the primary-voting season and must wait until he’s actually elected president, when that question should be resolved by the electoral college and Congress, “not this court.””

In plain legalize, Cruz’s lawyer states that he can run an illegal campaign, accept money via deceit and fraud, and no one can do nothing unless he’s elected.  If Teddy Cruz is elected, the Democrats will not only challenge his eligibility, but most likely win and the Democrat candidate will win by default. Talk about being hoodwinked by both political parties, as there is ample evidence that Ted Cruz is not only ineligible, but that that he also committed fraud running for the US Senate as a Canadian citizen. Talk about building a slush fund and defrauding the American people. Ted Cruz is a weasel and snake and needs to be exposed as the liar he is.

Cruz’s campaign by soliciting campaign contributions knowing that he’s ineligible  is defrauding the American public by disenfranchising (#1) the voters by enticing them to vote for an ineligible candidate.

Sending emails soliciting campaign funds and contributions  is also wire fraud. Anyone that has donated to the Cruz campaign their rights has been violated and should demand repayment.

CruzShort

#1 dis·en·fran·chise
ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/
verb
gerund or present participle: disenfranchising
  1. deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
    “the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification”
    • deprived of power; marginalized.
      “a hard core of kids who are disenfranchised and don’t feel connected to the school”
    • deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.
      “a measure that would disenfranchise people from access to legal advice”

TEXAS REPUBLICAN PARTY, CRUZ, AND RUBIO COMMIT ELECTION FRAUD

By: Devvy
February 22, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

As I covered in my last several columns, the issue of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s constitutional ineligibility continues to be ignored by a corrupt ‘mainstream’ media as well as cable ‘news’ networks. Reporting on the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ seems to be beyond the understanding of reporters and other ‘experts’ like gas bag, Bill O’Reilly, sounding off. But they all, including FOX, have agendas so why let truth or the U.S. Constitution get in the way?

Any suggestion that Ted Cruz is ineligible – Rubio mysteriously being left out of the equation 95% of the time – is nothing more than conspiracy theories. Ted Cruz is the final authority while Rubio breathes a sigh of relief the spotlight hasn’t been focused on him – except by those of us who demand the U.S. Constitution be upheld.

This is the same garbage from the media we saw in 2008 & 2012 when the appropriate question came up regarding the fraud in the White House and his eligibility:

Dual citizenship may pose problem if Ted Cruz seeks presidency, The Dallas Morning News (Snooze)

WASHINGTON — “Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born. Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say…“He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.

“The circumstances of Cruz’s birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House. “Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship.”

That was in 2013. Catherine Frazier was Cruz’s mouthpiece at the time. I had to take a double look at her comment, “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship”. Really, Ms. Frazier? You made that statement August 18, 2013, at the same time the past Chairman of Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Section said Cruz was Canadian.

Ted Cruz to renounce Canadian citizenship ‘soon’, January 5, 2014: “Canada-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has yet to renounce his birth country’s citizenship as promised — but a spokeswoman says the conservative tea party favourite plans to finish the process soon. Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the junior senator from Texas, said Saturday that lawyers are preparing the necessary paperwork.”

Oh, my. In August 2013, Catherine Frazier said Cruz had never held Canadian citizenship. However, less than five months later Cruz’s lawyers are preparing the paperwork for Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship. I wonder if Ms. Frazier practices the art of lying in front of a mirror? She certainly has a good role model in Ted Cruz.

Supporters of Cruz and Rubio either don’t want to hear the truth or simply don’t care. Activists in states like New Hampshire and South Carolina who have attended many of their events send me email at how frustrating it is when they ask supporters why they don’t seem to care their candidate is not constitutionally eligible? Responses vary from Ted Cruz is a lawyer, he knows the law and says the law is well settled to “Buzz off birther. No one cares what you have to say”.

Rubio supporters ask the $64k dollar question upchuck it’s all a planned attack by Trump supporters. Two that were politely ask about this important issue said Rubio is eligible because his parents are U.S. citizens. Somehow those faithful don’t understand simple English: natural born citizen. Born being the key word here. Rubio’s parents being foreign nationals at the time of Rubio’s birth. Rubio’s parents becoming U.S. citizens when little Marco was four years old does not equate to natural born; their actions came after the legal time frame.

Ted Cruz: What we know to be provable facts. At the time of his birth his mother was a U.S. citizen, his father (like the criminal impostor in the White House) was a foreign national. We now know Cruz could not claim dual citizenship under Canadian law because at the time of his birth, 1970, Canada did not recognize dual citizenship. That loosening of citizenship in Canada did not come about until 1977. Ted Cruz was a full Canadian citizen at the time of his birth.

There is no evidence Cruz’s parents filed a CRBA or Consulate Report of Birth Aboard. Why is that important?

Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad – US Passports & International Travel

“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.

“According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.”

To date, Cruz refuses to release a certified – as in not another forgery like Barry Obama’s birth certificate – copy of the CRBA his mother allegedly filed. Oh, that’s right. Remember what Ms. Frazier said above: “…he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen.”

If there is no CRBA, how could Ted Cruz have legally entered the U.S.? According to Cruz’s mouthpieces, Cruz was issued a passport in 1986 for a school field trip. If that’s the case, under what citizenship did Cruz obtain a passport? Canadian or U.S.? If his parents never filed a CRBA making Cruz a U.S. citizen, did he enter the US illegally? If he never went through the naturalization process by his parents submitting a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and he’s no longer a Canadian citizen, just what country does Cruz claim citizenship under?

Ted Cruz has worked hard at cementing an image of integrity and honesty. We know that was partially blown to bits by the hit job he and his minions did on Dr. Ben Carson in Iowa. If Cruz has nothing to hide, release the CRBA so at least we can see that at some point – too late to be a natural BORN citizen – he actually became a U.S. citizen.

Several lawsuits have been filed against Secretaries of State

New Yorkers sue to boot Ted Cruz from ballot because he was born in Canada. Unfortunately, the two plaintiffs are rolling the dice on Cruz being born in Canada as the sole disqualifying factor. It is not and likely the Board of Elections, because they are equally as ignorant as the corrupt media in this country (excluding ‘alternative’ media reporting accurately on this issue) will likely throw it out.

Case against Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be heard in Illinois on Friday (February 19, 2016): “Lawrence Joyce, an Illinois voter who has objected to Cruz’s placement on the Illinois primary ballot next month, will have his case heard in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago. Joyce’s previous objection, made to the state’s Board of Elections, was dismissed on February 1.” I was unable to find a ruling before cut off time to submit this column.

As I encouraged everyone to do, I wrote to our Secretary of State; no reply but I’m sure a few months down the line I’ll get a form letter. It appears, the same as 2008 & 2012, that Secretaries of States already challenged on this issue have neither the intellect or the courage to to do their jobs regarding an ineligible candidate(s) being put on the ballot – so far. Gutless elected officials who hide behind excuses like it’s not their job; I already covered this in my last column.

(More than a dozen individuals e-mailed and ask me to send them a copy of my letter. I’m sorry, but I have no staff to deal with the enormous number of emails I receive everyday, many with individual requests. A letter doesn’t have to be particularly long and easiest is to include an article or two with the most factual information on this issue. )

I see the handwriting on the wall continuing to pursue gutless Secretaries of States so I think it’s time to try a different elected official. For me, that is the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton. I had intended to get my letter out to him last week, but my husband passed away in his sleep, February 6, 2016. It was a huge shock. It’s been very difficult dealing with his passing and all the legal issues that need to be addressed. However, one thing that helps is to keep doing what I always do and that is bringing the truth to the light of day and doing whatever I can to force a resolution to a problem.

A State Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in each state. The job of a State Attorney General is to investigate fraud and that means election fraud since we’re already seeing the same as 2008 & 2012. Secretaries of States refusing to do their job regarding an ineligible candidate(s) being put on the ballot because it’s all about politics.

In order for Cruz and Rubio to appear on the primary ballot here in Texas they first had to file as candidates with The Texas Republican Party, which they did. The Texas GOP has an application for president (click on Presidential Ballot Application). On the first page of the application to be filled out by the candidate it reads the candidate swears he is a natural born citizen of the Untied States and eligible to hold that office.

The Texas Republican Party accepted two sworn applications, one by Cruz and one by Rubio, without bothering to verify whether or not either candidate was truthful. By submitting Cruz & Rubio’s names to the Texas Secretary of State for the primary now underway the Texas Republican Party is guilty of fraud since neither candidate is eligible. Cruz and Rubio swore on their applications they are natural born citizens and since they not they both committed election fraud.

Don’t tell me Ted Cruz, a Princeton and Haaavard law grad, who also served as a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States in 1996 and Solicitor General for the State of Texas believes he is a natural born citizen. Cruz knew his dual citizenship from being born in Canada (which we now know he never had because Canada did not recognize dual citizenship at the time Teddy was born) was going to be a problem and that such a citizenship status would impact him under the definition of natural born citizen. Cruz is too intelligent not to know he’s ineligible.

I firmly believe Cruz knows his party allowed Barry Obama to get away with usurping the office of president, so why should he worry the Republican Party wouldn’t cover his backside? The GOP knows the massive repercussions of comparing Cruz to Obama and their citizenship problem so they’re willing, once again, to turn a blind eye and crap on the U.S. Constitution. Cruz persists with his deliberate misrepresentations in the hope that if he says it often enough people will be believe it to be true: Ted Cruz Misrepresents the Law and His Being a Natural Born Citizen at Town Hall Meeting

[By the way, a devout Cruz supporter, ‘conservative’ talk show host, Mark Levin, has agreed to debate anyone he deems credible over the issue of natural born. I nominate Mario Apuzzo (author of the piece above). If you’d like to contact Levin and request Mario as the person to debate send your message: @marklevinshow]

Rubio on the other hand has never struck me as being very intelligent and has been the butt of endless jokes following one of the debates because of his constant repeating of the same punch lines. Think Rubio hasn’t been confronted about both of his parents being foreign nationals at the time of his birth? Think his legal people haven’t looked into it? Hogwash. As I said above, for the most part Rubio has managed to stay in the wings and let Cruz take big heat on the issue of eligibility. But, make no mistake: Rubio is looking over his shoulder just waiting for Trump to strike.

I encourage you to write your Attorney General demanding charges are brought against the GOP [Your state], Cruz and Rubio for fraud. Their names should not be on the ballot. Does the truth matter anymore Mr. Attorney General? Are party interests (our AG is a Republican) more important than the truth and the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Attorney General? The American people are fed up with the lies and fraud involving our elections. Your office has the authority to go after those who violate the law. Putting an ineligible candidate on the ballot is a violation of election law and I don’t care who the candidate is, no one is above the law.

Use some of the paragraphs in this column if you want and include one or all three of the items below with your letter. It’s easy to just cut and paste into a word processor with full credit to the author. Tell your AG that neither Cruz nor Rubio meet constitutional requirements to be on the ballot. Don’t think it’s a waste of time. You are putting the AG on notice that we the people know the truth and when you run for reelection don’t be surprised when you lose your next primary. It’s also important to provide State Attorney Generals (I also have a duplicate package to go to Gov. Greg Abbott) with factual legal conclusions regarding what a natural born citizen is for what I call an education effort.

* A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another
* The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth
* Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to be President

Of course, the one person with the financial means and juice to force this issue is Donald Trump. If Trump began legal proceedings against the state Attorney Generals and Secretaries of State, those two elected officials would not be able to ignore Trump as they do we the people who mean nothing but votes to them.

Perhaps the outcome of the South Carolina primary might have an effect on Trump and possible legal action. Jeb! Bush finally decided no one except his family and big money donors who expect favors down the line (ambassadorships, cabinet posts or signing favorable legislation into law) was interested in anything he had to say. His cardboard demeanor throughout his run never really connected with voters, I don’t think, not to mention this country is fed up with phony political ‘dynasties’.

John Kasich, who never upheld his oath of office while in Congress or introduced a single bill to kill the cancers killing America says he’s staying in the race so he can continue listening to the sound of his own voice and spreading compassion. Dr. Ben Carson, while not qualified to be president, bless his heart is staying in the race for now. Dr. Carson has done this country a great service by running because his lifetime achievements and experience gives hope to black Americans across this country that the message of failure and dependency pushed by the Democratic/Communist Party USA is toxic and that through education and hard work, they, too, can be the best instead of ‘victims’ of the white race.

Those same Republican cowards wonder why Donald Trump is cleaning their clock? Millions of Americans know the truth about Barry Obama and through their voting – besides Trump’s positive message – are telling Republican elites to go to Hell for their betrayal by allowing a Marxist traitor to squat in the White House all these years.That leaves Trump, Cruz and Rubio. How obscene two out of three front runners in the race for the White House are constitutionally ineligible and not a single Republican in the GOP hierarchy, including the Republican National Committee, gives a damn about the U.S. Constitution. Republican higher ups allowed a constitutionally ineligible candidate, a Manchurian Candidate if there ever was one to “win” the presidency twice. A fraud who usurped the office of president that has wreaked massive damage to this country over the past seven years. Now it’s one of their own and the hell with the Constitution.

Links:

1 – Full Panic Mode: Rubio Caught Lying About ICE Agent, Breitbart on Fox News
2 – Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President
3 – A Response to Neal Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen
4 – Why A Rock-Ribbed Conservative Supports Donald Trump 100%
5 – Jeb hit between eyes with sensational allegations
6 – NY State BOE receives flurry of ‘natural-born’ objections to Rubio and Cruz

Please, click on “Mass E-mailing” below and send this article to all your friends.

[Just a short note about 9/11 and Smart Electric Meeters. The cost of America’s undeclared “war” (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion borrowed dollars – massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation, but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or give a copy as a present. I’ve purchased half a dozen copies and given them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It’s very powerful simply because it’s one ‘ordinary’ man’s story who ask a simple question that led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in this film that many have never heard about but everyone should. Just a suggestion, order more than one and give one to a friend. Also, must see video on the dangers of Smart Meeters on your home, titled: Take Back Your Power.]

© 2016 – NewsWithViews.com and Devvy – All Rights Reserved

Cruz Reality – Weasel or Snake

TC4

TC-TheMarshallReport2

The Debate and New Englander and Yale Review

Republican presidential contenders Ted Cruz and Donald Trump engaged in a heated debate Thursday night over whether Cruz’s Canadian birthplace prevents him from being eligible to hold the office of president.

“You are an American, as is everyone on this stage,” Cruz shot back. “I suggest we focus on who is best prepared to be commander in chief. Because that’s the most important question facing the country.”

Rafael Cruz in typical lawyer style deflecting the issue, negating the law.

Below are screenshots of the New Englander and Yale Review III – 1845

Let’s begin at pg 413 and note the following.

In the intercourse of nations, and in the public law which regulates it, the term ‘ citizen’ is used with respect to our own and other republican governments wherever ‘ subject’ is used with respect to monarchies, and includes all persons under the protection of such government,as owing allegiance to it. For example, the eighth article of the treaty of 1783 stipulates that ” the navigation of the river Mississippi shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.” Under such a usage, in the numerous cases of prize and capture with which, up to the close of the last war, the Federal Courts were crowded, the rights of parties in suit, under the law of nations, depended on their citizenship, and that on their allegiance.

YR413

on to page 414

The expression ‘ citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘ natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance
by birth to foreign states ; in the other cases, the word ‘ citizen’ issued without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication
that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members.

YR414

Lets look at allegiance on page 417

Our inquiries, therefore, conducted through the several departments of natural and international law, the law and practice under the Constitution, and the municipal law of the states, lead to the conclusion, that the rights and duties which distinguish the status of the citizen, appertain to all free persons born in a state, and so owing allegiance by birth to the state and the United States ;—unless indeed we venture on the desperate alternative of calling in question that cardinal doctrine of the natural and the common law, the doctrine of natural allegiance.

YR417

That being said, here on page 418 is the law of nations,
We conclude, then, that wherever definite personal rights, recognized by the law, depend upon the use of the term citizen,—whether in the law of nations, as received and applied in this country, in treaties, in the Constitution of the United States, in the practice of the Federal Courts, or in the constitutions and bills of rights of the states,—it applies to all persons, who, being born under the jurisdiction of a state or the United States, or having been duly naturalized, owe allegiance and its incidents according to the doctrine of the common law.


YR418B

Bringing that the Law of Nations and the definition of Natural Born Citizenship into one harmonious relationship, again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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 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.

 

Rafael Edward Cruz was born to a foreign father (Cuban National) in a foreign country. Rafael Edward Cruz’s own ‘Birth Certificate’ proves it.

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael Edward Cruz is not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States. PERIOD!

Wong Kim Ark says Ted Cruz not eligible

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Annotate this 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. 

Thank you Ann Coulter

WE’RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW

If Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen,” eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama’s mother was a U.S. Citizen.

Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he’s eligible to be president, then so was Obama — even if he’d been born in Kenya.

As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)

Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!

But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.” (Never let the kids at Kinko’s do your legal research.)

I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy — as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers (www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html).

The Constitution says: “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.”

The phrase “natural born” is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.

The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.

It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance — not his Scottish blood — that determined his rights.

Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.” Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural” subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.” (Sorry, anchor babies.) However, they still qualified for food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid.

Relying on English common law for the meaning of “natural born,” the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents” was left to Congress “in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)

A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born — but only by “naturalization,” i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not “natural born.”

Because Cruz’s citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had “any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit” — as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).

That would make no sense if Cruz were a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” (There’s an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn’t that.)

So Cruz was born a citizen — under our naturalization laws — but is not a “natural born citizen” — under our Constitution.

I keep reading the arguments in favor of Cruz being a “natural born citizen,” but don’t see any history, any Blackstone Commentaries, any common law or Supreme Court cases.

One frequently cited article in the Harvard Law Review cites the fact that the “U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency.”

Sen. McCain probably was natural born — but only because he was born on a U.S. military base to a four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy, and thus is analogous to the ambassador’s child described in Calvin’s Case. (Sorry, McCain haters — oh wait! That’s me!)

But a Senate resolution — even one passed “unanimously”! — is utterly irrelevant. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said, the court’s job is to ascertain “objective law,” not determine “some kind of social consensus,” which I believe is the job of the judges on “American Idol.” (On the other hand, if Congress has the power to define constitutional terms, how about a resolution declaring that The New York Times is not “speech”?)

Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a “natural born citizen.” This is constitutional illiteracy. “Natural born” is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an “active judge” in legal terminology.

The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “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.”

Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.

As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: “It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.”

The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born — except the part about not being natural born.

Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)”

Unless we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”

Take it like a man, Ted — and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html

 

 

Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility would most likely be challenged by Democrats

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility would most likely be challenged by Democrats — should he be the Republican nominee — and ultimately decided on by the Supreme Court, according to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Paul said Cruz’s presidential eligibility will be a question as the Constitution uses the “unusual language” of “natural-born” when laying out the criteria for U.S. presidents.

 “The thing is, I think all experts agree that he was naturally born in Canada, and so the legal question is: can you be naturally born in Canada and also be considered a natural-born American citizen, and it hasn’t been decided,” Paul, also a GOP presidential hopeful, said Sunday.
Image source: CBS News

Image source: CBS News

“I think the Democrats will challenge it, at the very least, and I think it will have to decided by the Supreme Court,” the libertarian-leaning senator continued.

Paul said that if Cruz is elected as the next U.S. president, “he would be the first president not born in the United States” — a feat that Paul called “extraordinary.”

Cruz’s eligibility to be president has been called into question during the 2016 campaign as he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Cruz officially renounced his dual Canadian citizenship in the summer of 2014 — something fellow GOP presidential contender Carly Fiorina said was “odd.”

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump saidbackstage prior to a campaign event earlier this month. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

I states this in my previous post.

Ted Cruz the ineligible and the 2016 Democrat end Game

Here is Rafael (Ted) Cruz in 2012

TedCruzDisqualifiesHimself