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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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 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

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. 

 

 

Ted Cruz is no Constitutionalist

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

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.

#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

BusTED

Another Cruz loss in Soth Carolina. Third place!