Trump to Cruz: You’re not a natural born citizen!

Trump knows and explains it to the people. Rafael (Ted) Cruz is not a eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States

H/T CDR Kerchner

Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866

“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))

 

Rafael (Ted) Cruz disqualifies himself

 

RafaelCruz

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

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

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don’t have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
Cruz: “I would agree.”
Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”
Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”

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

TedCruzDisqualifiesHimself

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

UPDATE:

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

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

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

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

snippet:

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

Ted Cruz and the GOP’s new game

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

WONDERFUL!

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

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

mommy cruz's BC

mommy cruz’s BC

What does it prove?

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

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

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

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

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

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

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

Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866

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

again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court

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

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

Are they equal?

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

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

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

No they are not equal. Not even close.

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

What are the requirements for being a Representitive or Senator?

Representitive, COTUS

Article 1 sec 2

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

Please make note: a citizen

Now a Senator, COTUS

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

Again make note: a citizen

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

President, COTUS

Art 2 sec 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

When did Kenya became Hawaii?

 When did Kenya become Hawaii?

Barack Hussein Obama claims to have been born on the island of Oahu in Hawaii on Aug 4th, 1961. This claim is backed up by one and only one document [in three versions], and not one these has been proven to be a valid and authentic document. Just because it was initially accepted, does not mean it is real or factual.

More to the point, until Barack Hussein Obama was campaigning for the Presidency his place of birth was not an issue. The Constitutional requirements for the Presidency are clearly laid out in the United States Constitution Art. 2 sec. 5.  As it has been established here that a Natural Born Citizen is a person born to Citizen parent(s) at the minimal standards, but also born in country. Link SR 511 confirms this.

So if being born in the United States is all that is required for eligibility for the Presidency, Barack Hussein Obama should have no issue releasing a long form Birth Certificate issued from the State of Hawaii. Correct?  A long form Birth certificate contains all the recorded vital static’s at the moment of birth, the doctor, the witnesses, the weight, siblings (if any), parents, their occupations and other static’s.

So the question is ‘When did Kenya become Hawaii?’  Because until the campaign newspaper articles that referred too Barack Hussein Obama all reported ‘Kenyan-Born’.

[click on the images below for a larger pop-up]

The first is a report that when Obama was running for Illinois State Senator he was ‘Kenyan-Born’. The report is from the AP or Associated Press. So even before Barack Hussein Obama was campaigning as a Presidential candidate the news media was reporting Obama as ‘Kenyan-Born’.

The Kenyan Government on their official record states that Obama was born in Kenya and is not even a US Citizen.  Link and more statements by the Kenyan Government

Barack Hussein Obama’s own wife Michelle has stated more then once that Kenya is his ‘Home Country’

So when did Kenya become Hawaii?

We the People

Racism in America – It’s REAL

Time3

Time6Carter

Senate Resolution 511 and what it really means

Most people looking into the eligibility issue concerning Barack Obama aka Barrack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barry Obama, [sounds more like a wanted posted with all these alias’s], have seen SR511. Senate Resolution 511 is in terms the defining moment when the Senate gave its approval for one of their own, to circumvent the laws of this nation.

Let’s look at  SR511 and it’s interpretation of the Presidential eligibility

 Here is the Resolution text.

 Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

 Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

 Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

 The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

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)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

 It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

 Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on  being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States. 

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?