• SiteMeter

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 18th 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

Ted Cruz to Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s Blog | Protect the Constitution to Protect Our Liberty – Learn Who Is a “Natural Born Citizen” to Constitutional Standards – Obama’s ID Documents Are Forged// //

//

Usurpation 3.0 — Report: Canadian-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Set To Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

Report: Canadian-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Set To Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign – Shame on Him!

Ted Cruz is clearly NOT constitutionally eligible.  Obama got away with it (with an enabling, anti-constitutional, left-leaning, major-media, main-stream press) and now many Republicans wish to try it with constitutionally ineligible candidates like Ted Cruz.  We are a Republic not a Democracy.  We need to live up to our Constitution and the Rule of Law.  No matter how much you may like Cruz’s politics, he is NOT constitutionally eligible.  He was born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen, foreign-national, Cuban father. Being born in the USA is a “necessary” but “not sufficient” part of being a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards.  Cruz is clearly not one. Being simply a basic “Citizen at Birth” gained via statutory laws and acts of Congress does not cut it.  Those laws do not even mention the term “natural born”.  What the Repubs are doing is a disgrace to their oath of office.  The leadership of the major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted by the founders and framers. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural” to being a “born Citizen”.   Adjectives mean something special in front of a noun.  And that particular adjective points to the Laws of Nature, not man, and comes from Natural Law and its principles. See section 212 of this legal treatise written in 1758 and used by the founders and framers to justify the revolution and write the founding documents: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/  Read this historical and legal U.S. Supreme Court information on the subject: http://www.art2superpac.com/html  Also read these rebuttals to the political party lawyers who are pumping the simple Citizen a Birth argument, dropping the natural adjective or trying to conflate the two terms.  This article addresses the NECESSARY part  http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and this article which addresses the NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT parts and true definition http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html  

Again being born in the USA (which Cruz is unambiguously not) is a “necessary” but “not sufficient” part of being born a “natural born Citizen” of the USA.  Cruz knows better but he is putting his own political aspirations about respect for the Constitution.  He is showing himself to just another politician and is not a statesman and/or standing up for his oath of office to the Constitution.    CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Read more and comment here:  http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/report-united-states-senator-ted-cruz.html

Read historical information for who is and who is not a “natural born Citizen” to U.S. Constitutional standards at this website:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

2006 Associated Press Video: Obama’s Trip To Kenya; Welcome Home Senator Obama

 

 

2006 Associated Press Video: Obama’s Trip To Kenya; Welcome Home Senator Obama
More raw video has surfaced from Obama’s 2006 trip to Kenya that shows him with his Kenyan grandmother and mass murderer Raila Odinga being welcomed with a sign that reads, Welcome Home Senator Obama.

Some may recall back in 2011 Reuters video(embedded at end) surfaced of the same trip…

Obama was captured in the Reuters video recorded in Kenya stating:

I’m so proud to come back home…

The latest video was actually uploaded to Youtube a week before the Reuters clip was reported by BR…

It’s just now making the rounds. It would be nice to see the complete raw news videos from this trip…

2006WHOB


Remember it was also in  Sept 2006, when the following was stated by Obama himself;

In Sept 2006 Illinois State Senator Obama, while on an international trip was interviewed by Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times.

Obama: Africa lessons; look ahead. En route back to U.S.
By Lynn Sweet on September 3, 2006 8:40 AM |

N’DJAMENA, Chad–Sen. Barack Obama departed this capital city Sunday morning, en route on an Army military aircraft to Frankfort, Germany to catch a commercial flight back to the United States.

He leaves wtih a “great urgency” to pressure the U.S. and other players to force Sudan to accept a United Nations peackeeping force in the Darfur region. Obama’s last stop was at a refugee camp near the Chad-Sudan border where some 15,333 people who fled Janjaweed violence live. Of those he talked to, they told him almost to a person they want to return-but cannot unless there are UN troops there to guarantee their safety.

After this major Africa swing–he left Washington on Aug. 18–the Illinois Democrat revs up a heavy political schedule in advance of the November elections, stumping in Iowa on Sept. 17, a stop in the early presidential caucus state that fuels speculation about whether the White House is in his future.

Obama launches his national book tour for his second book Oct. 17 in Chicago.

He reflected on his trip at the back of a plane on Saturday, talking above the roar of the engines to the three print reporters who have been covering his trip.

Obama’s next big international journey will be in 2007 –he’s looking at China, India and Indonesia, “where ironicall I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya.”

Link

Krauthammer: Dems Will Regret Allowing Obama’s ‘Lawlessness’

Krauthammer: Dems Will Regret Allowing Obama’s ‘Lawlessness’

Appearing on Friday night’s On the Record, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer strongly criticized President Barack Obama for his “cavalier attitude” towards the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. “Democrats will rue the day that they allowed all this,” Krauthammer declared. “I’m talking about how the administration, particularly the president, seems to think that he has the right to change duly passed statutes on his own or to suspend parts of laws on his own,” Krauthammer said when asked to clarify his critique of the Obama administration’s “lawlessness.”

“The Constitution is pretty clear,” he continued, “the Congress passes the laws and the president executes the laws.”

Krauthammer cited Obama’s unilateral delaying of aspects of the Affordable Care Act and his appointing of administration officials via recess appointment while the Senate was in session. “This is a very cavalier attitude,” he added.

The columnist said that the president’s direction to insurers to reinstate policies that were cancelled as a result of new coverage requirements in the ACA is the most recent and most egregious example of Obama’s “lawlessness.”

“Obama’s own law is something that he ignores,” Krauthammer asserted.

“Do you think this is on the rise inside the beltway?” fill-in anchor Harris Faulkner asked, observing that this style of executive governance has been an increasing over the decades.

“I think it is because I think there is so much hostilities between the parties that the one party in power is willing to overlook all kinds of illegalities, all kinds of violation of constitutional norms, if it satisfies their political interests, if it advances their agenda,” Krauthammer agreed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKEZMquHSG0

TOP 10 QUESTIONS JOURNALISTS WON’T ASK PRESIDENT OBAMA AT PRESS CONFERENCE

by JOEL B. POLLAK 9 Aug 2013, 6:01 AM PDT 5POST A COMMENT

President Barack Obama rarely makes himself available to the mainstream media. They adore him anyway. At rare press conferences, such as the one scheduled for noon Friday at the White House, they lob softball questions or accept his evasive, meandering answers, rarely pressing him for clarity, much less truth. But there are many questions that the president ought to answer, yet which he is unlikely to face at all.

10. In 2008 you promised not to “do an end-run around Congress” with signing statements. Yet you have used signing statements and you have taken executive actions to circumvent Congress on immigration and other issues. Recently, you decided the employer mandate will not be enforced on October 1. Yet that date is stipulated by law. Doesn’t the Obamacare delay violate your powers under the Constitution?

9. Last week we learned that dozens of CIA personnel were in Benghazi at the time of the attack, and that there may be ongoing efforts to suppress information about what actually happened. In October 2012, you said that you issued three directives when you learned of the attack, yet these have never been seen. What did you actually do during the Benghazi attack, and why weren’t you more actively involved?

8. Last month, IRS officials testified to Congress that IRS Chief Counsel William J. Wilkins, whom you appointed, was directly involved in reviewing applications for non-profit status by Tea Party groups. He also met with you in April 2012, prior to issuing new “Be on the Lookout” (BOLO) criteria for evaluating such applications. What was your personal knowledge of the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups?

7. Recently your administration launched a new round of peace negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders. Israel had repeatedly said that it would negotiate without preconditions, but Palestinian leaders would not. Your administration, through Secretary of State John Kerry, pressed Israel to release 104 terrorists from Israeli jails. Was there a single new concession you demanded from Palestinians?

6. You have publicly dressed down the U.S. military on the issue of sexual assault. In the 2012 campaign, you were very involved in specific controversies, even calling Sandra Fluke, for example. Yet you have refused to say anything about the conduct of a fellow Democrat, Mayor Bob Filner of San Diego, who refuses to resign. Aren’t you setting a bad example on sexual assault, as commander-in-chief, in the Filner case?

5. Edward Snowden has continued to reveal new information about the National Security Agency’s abilities to gather information about Americans’ private communications. Leaving aside the question of whether the government should have that power, or whether you have broken past promises on civil liberties, the fact that these leaks happened at all is striking. Why is Gen. Keith Alexander still the head of the NSA?

4. Recently you announced that you were canceling a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, over the Snowden issue and gay rights. Yet last month, even after Putin indicated he might offer Snowden asylum, you were still offering drastic cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal. It looks like the “reset” with Russia is a failure, after so many concessions.Isn’t it time to stop offering new cuts to U.S. nuclear weapons?

3. You are backing the Senate immigration bill, which passed because Democrats agreed to include border security measures. Regardless of whether those measures are sufficient, they depend on a commitment to enforce the law as written. Yet you have refused to enforce existing immigration laws, even imposing a so-called “Dream Act” by fiat. Why should Americans trust you to enforce a new immigration law?

2. You campaigned on the promise to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yet you have helped the Taliban open a new office in Qatar, complicating relations with President Hamid Karzai, and recently suggested that there could be a “zero option” in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, as the U.S. withdraws, Al Qaeda is on the offensive across the region, and might return. Are we not repeating the mistakes of the past in Afghanistan?

1. You are about to head into a new round of budget negotiations. Some Republicans leaders have suggested that they are willing to offer concessions on the budget sequester if you commit to entitlement reform. You have spoken in theory about making some cuts but have never presented a plan, on paper, and have rejected all suggestions, even the Simpson-Bowles commission. Where is your plan to reform entitlements?

Bonus question: Last month, you spoke at length about how the African-American community views the death of Trayvon Martin case. You also asked people to respect the decision of the jury. Yet your Department of Justice is still aggressively investigating George Zimmerman, who is living in hiding, though all previous investigations showed no racial bias. Aren’t you violating Zimmerman’s civil rights?

 via http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/09/Top-10-Questions-Journalists-Won-t-Ask-at-President-Obama-Presser

‘THEY ARE LIARS’: BECK SAYS THESE THEN-AND-NOW OBAMA VIDEOS PROVE IT

Those who closely follow current events may often find themselves hearing a politician making a claim, but swearing they heard them say the exact opposite a month, a year, or even a decade ago.

That’s because, many times, they did.

Tuesday night on TheBlaze TV, Glenn Beck aired a segment documenting a number of apparent lies and falsehoods being pushed by the current administration, though he was clear that GOP leaders have done the same.

In the case of health care reform, for instance, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised that families who earn $250,000 a year or less would not see their taxes increases by “one dime” under his plan. But when his lawyers were arguing for the bill in front of the Supreme Court, they said the exact opposite to ensure its passage, arguing that all the new “penalties” are taxes.

“It’s important that you understand the lies that have been told thus far, because they’re only getting worse, and they’re only getting much more dangerous,” Beck warned.

Beck played the following clip, noting that it is 100% “in their own words” in case you want to share it with friends:

 

Beck argued that the administration has employed a “three-step process” that begins with lies, continues with revising history to fit the desired story, and concludes with smearing anyone who tries to speak out.

“The only way for them to maintain absolute power is for them to always be lying,” Beck said.  “To keep this illusion that they can never be wrong, they must silence or attack their opponents who prove them wrong time and time again.”

Beck analyzed the president’s words in more detail on his radio program Monday, from the president’s “early years” to the IRS scandal:

more

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/03/exposing-the-lies-revealing-video-captures-obama-the-left-in-their-own-words/

 

Benghazi Whistle Blower: “… Americans Were Deliberately Left There To Die”

MAY 2, 2013 BY  
benghazi-burning-reuters
Two of my SEAL brothers (Doherty and Woods) were in Benghazi, working with the CIA on an intelligence mission to locate shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles that were stolen by Al Qaeda when Libya fell. They heard several shots being fired near the consulate. It was recorded that Ty radioed to inform his superiors and tell them what he was hearing and requested permission to assist at the consulate. However, they were told to “stand down!” An hour later, they called again to report the gunfire and requested to assist and were again told to “stand down!” WHY? And by whom? Only the President can give the order to military units to cross a country’s borders.

On or about midnight, while shooting in various areas was still going on, it was reported that Woods and Doherty called for any U.S. military support they could get because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house/annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound (which was verified by the radio recordings and by the drone that was flying overhead.) The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, it was reported that Doherty was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun killing several terrorists when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. Because they knew that there was a drone overhead, Woods had a laser on the mortar position for targeting. However, the drone was reported to be unarmed.

 It was reported that both Woods and Doherty were killing every terrorist that appeared. Ty repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship that was in a neutral area. This is a C-130 aircraft that fires 20mm bullets (about the size of a man’s thumb) and 105 howitzer rounds at laser-illuminated targets. This aircraft is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The aircraft was told to “stand down”! WHY? And by whom? Again, only the President can give the order to military units to cross a country’s borders or not to.
Stevens

It was learned that the fighting at the CIA annex alone went on for more than four hours; this was enough time for any planes based in Spain, Italy, or Djibouti to arrive and assist. However, two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait: a special Marine FAST unit and Delta Force operators. WHY? And by whom? Only the President can give the order to military units to cross a country’s borders. Why did the president NOT give the order?

It was learned through various witnesses that the end came when the terrorists fired mortar rounds that detonated on top of the annex. It is believed that Doherty was killed when the mortar exploded, and Ty Woods was mortally wounded. Woods bled out from his wounds for several hours after he was hit. This was reported by those who were sent in to recover the Ambassador’s body; and when they saw the type of wounds that Woods had received from the exploded mortar round and the amount of blood that he had lost, it was speculated that he had lived for perhaps 1 or 2 hours before he finally died from the loss of blood.

My sources are those who were attached to various support units (and who were in and around the area at the time); and I gave them my word that I would not publicize their names, as some are still on active duty. This is ONLY a small bit of the information that was notarized and sent to several representatives. Our team compiled 42 pages of information. When the entire report is read, one can ONLY conclude that these Americans were deliberately left there to die, due to the criminal negligence and inaction on behalf of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Hillary ignored pleads for assistance in security to shut down the consulate, as it was becoming unsafe. Hilary also had a part in forging documents and openly lied about a movie being the cause of the attacks. Furthermore, she told the parents of Doherty and Woods that “They are going to prosecute those responsible for making the movie, which sparked the attacks.” WHY the lie about a movie?

benghazi4

 Obama, as president, is the ONLY one who can give cross-border permission to any military command or unit to go into another country. Obama NEVER gave that permission. Obama also did NOT stay apprised of the situation when he was informed of the dangers in Benghazi. It is known that Obama was very ambiguous in his presidential responsibilities and told aides to (paraphrased) “do what they think is right.” Obama also lied to the American people about why the attack happened by blaming this event on a movie. WHY the lies? WHY did he NOT authorize the military rescue? WHY did he not get ALL Americans out of Benghazi the moment that he learned that Americans, especially one of his ambassadors, were in danger? What was to be gained by NOT taking ANY action and leaving Americans there to die? The president would have been hailed a hero for sending in a rescue team to save Americans, especially during an election. Yet he decided NOT to take ANY action and leave the next day for a fundraiser in Las Vegas! By not taking the appropriate military action to rescue Americans, President Obama is responsible for the deaths of four Americans! WHY did he NOT take action?

Benghazi-attack

Billy Allmon is a retired Navy SEAL and honorably served his country from 1969 to 1993. He retired as a chief petty officer and is a combat veteran of three wars. While in the SEALs, Mr. Allmon participated in numerous covert and overt missions around the world in support of US and foreign governments, militaries, and other official agencies.
His new book, When the Bullet Hits Your Funny Bone: The Essence of a U.S. Navy SEAL, is a collection of stories about his time in the U. S. Navy SEALs and how they use their humor to cope with all the tragic events and horrific sights, which all Navy SEALs must deal with throughout their professional careers.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers