• SiteMeter

The GOP’s slogan for 2016


Tea Party Nation gets it wrong

Last week Tea Party Nation published the following;

Tea Party Nation is WRONG and lying.

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

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


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

 It is an important question.

 Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?

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

 But what is a natural born citizen?

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

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


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

 And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

 There is the definition right there.

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

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

The 1790 Act is clear;  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

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

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

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

The United States Supreme Court in numerous cases stated

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


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


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

 That makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.

WRONG, Tea Party Nation is wrong and lying.

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

Read more here on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen

Ted Cruz to Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly

To the clown pince of spin, once again I have edited a letter and sent it to the bloviating ‘Prince of Spin’ Bill O’Reilly.

Hencewith here is the letter.


First off, I am a reformed viewer.  Reformed as in I can no longer view your spin-zone without seeing through your bias and blatant lying to the American public. Over the past few years your attempts to malign and marginalize those that questioned Obama’s past is at best yellow journalism.

Recently, your shallow defense of Obama when questioned about his being a Muslim was totally ignorant. Your response; ‘pass any info along to you’. I already know that numerous emails, both electronic and postal have been trashed, neglected, and outright dismissed by you and your staff.

When, Barack Obama stands in front of the UN and publicly states that “the future does not belong to those that insult Islam” or numerous other statements that not only defend Islam but insult every other religion, you still play ignorance. The latest insult from Obama at the Prayer Breakfast where ‘Christians have done terrible things.’ How does one equate 1400 years of jihad and war to a 20 year crusade that liberated those under the savagery and butchery of Islam. When murders at a Paris Deli equate to random acts, when terrorist attacks in Copenhagen can’t be spoken for what they are. Wait till they happen here, then what will you call it? A parrot by any other name is still a parrot. Will you repeat the talking points with such conviction then? Barack Obama views his entire world and existence from an Islam upbringing and schooling. To that point Barack Obama cannot even call the obvious ‘Islamic Terrorism’ for what it is. Islam by its nature and definition is to kill anyone and everyone that is not Islamic or submissive to Islamic rule and domination. Read the Koran and Hadith. In Obama’s mind, Muslim’s wage JIHAD wherever they are, however they can and Major Nidal Malik Hasan was just waging jihad at work. But the Ft Hood massacre is now rightfully renamed and those that were murdered and wounded can receive their benefits that were denied under political correctness. Now Obama has an Islamic terrorist attack under his watch and he can’t even classify it correctly. Get educated Billy.

After your earlier lie, where you stated that kids get social security numbers based upon where their parents live. A lie beyond even mind numbing. You must be wholly ignorant of the facts. When the SSN was supposedly issued in 1977, they were issued on where you started to work. Even with that, when did Barack Obama Sr. ever live in Connecticut?  Do you realize what a fool you made of yourself, even to the simple fact that Barack Obama (not Sr.) fails e-Verify. Why does he fail e-verify?  Why?

You have sold out as Judas for your 30 pieces of silver, but in your case it’s your lavish and what you think you deserve life style. Well, the real Billy, was exposed during the famous Sting rant, or was it the multi-million dollar settlement for sexual harassment.

As a final note, the reason I called you Billy, is Bill or William are for adults whom deserve respect.

You have demonstrated and shown a complete lack of even common sense and a total disregard for the truth and as Judas a sell out to your country and without any ethical or moral standard.


A former listener;


Contact Bill O’Reilly
You can email Bill at oreilly@foxnews.com.
If you need help with The Store or BillOReilly.com, contact BillOReilly.com Customer Service.



Truth of Islam- Three Stages of Jihad




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



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

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

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

I’m so proud to come back home…

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Obama lies again


“Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

The Crusades were to free humanity under the Islamic oppression and jihad has been here for 1400 years and the Crusades lasted 20 years, There is no moral comparison. The crusades were also defensive wars to liberate those under Islam.

Too bad Obama is reciting what he learned in his madrassa.

Remember this;

Obama; ‘My Muslim faith’


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers