Cruz supporters and a repealed Act of 1790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Citing a law that was repealed five years later is simply childish and shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.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The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790.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That is your first mistake by citing a law that was repealed and then the Naturalization Act of 1795 was again repealed in 1802.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

Who Is The Real Heidi Nelson Cruz?

 

Roger Stone

The Daily Caller’s Men’s Fashion Editor

As the nation says “Goodbye” to Nancy Reagan – a woman widely admired as the quintessential political wife – we pause to ask: Who is Heidi Nelson Cruz?

Watching any Ted Cruz political advertisement featuring his wife and two young daughters, we could easily get the impression that Heidi Nelson Cruz, like Nancy Reagan, is a devoted wife dedicated to making sure she and her husband occupy the White House.

The New York Times in an article published on Jan. 18, described Heidi Cruz as “a political wife,” who had become a force in her husband’s presidential contest, “an all-purpose surrogate and strategist to be deployed as often as possible.”

Heidi is herself a high-powered Bush insider, who served as deputy to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice before signing on as a Deputy to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, neocon stalwart and former Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Zoellick wired a cushy job for Heidi when she landed at Goldman Sachs as a partner. Goldman would, of course, go on to make a secret $1 million loan to fund Ted’s U.S. Senate campaign while both Cruzes lied about the source of funds being Heidi’s retirement savings.

 Yet, investigating more deeply, Ted and Heidi Cruz have had a sometimes troubled relationship punctuated by bouts of physical separation that began when two young Christians on the fringe of protestant evangelicalism met while working on the Bush-Cheney 2000 presidential campaign.

Ted and Heidi began their married years as a Washington-insider “power couple,” before Ted left Heidi to continue her investment banking career in Washington, while Ted returned to Texas to pursue his political ambitions.

A Pentecostal marries a Seventh-day Adventist

Ted, who first came to Jesus Christ as a Pentecostal, was born in Canada in 1970, to two parents who met in Louisiana and re-married in 1969, after their first marriages ended in divorce. Ted’s father, today a Cuban-born preacher, moved to Calgary, Alberta, with his second wife – Ted’s mother – to work in the Canadian oil fields.

Ted’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She met Rafael in Louisiana where she was working as a computer programmer in the oil industry. Eleanor had first moved south to Houston, Texas to study mathematics at Rice University following the breakup of her first marriage and the tragic death of her first child, born to the husband she divorced.

When Ted was three years old, his father got on an airplane and flew back to Texas, abandoning his wife and son.

“When I was 3, my father decided to leave my mother and me,” Ted occasionally explains. “We were living in Calgary at the time, he got on a plane and he flew back to Texas, and he decided he didn’t want to be married anymore and he didn’t want to be a father to his 3-year-old son.”

Eventually reconciled in Texas, Rafael and Eleanor Darragh Cruz continued their troubled marriage through the 1970s, plagued by alcohol and infidelity, with a divorce in 1997, two years after Ted finished law school at Harvard.

Heidi’s family history, while less raucous, starts with her being born in 1972, to missionary parents in San Luis Obispo, where her mother, a dental hygienist, meet her father, a practicing dentist.

Raised a Seventh-day Adventist, Kenya was one of the many countries young Heidi remembered as home as she traveled around the world with her preacher parents on their missionary quest.

“Beltway” years

In 2001, Ted found himself directing the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, having ruffled feathers of top Bush-Cheney political operatives by his largely overstated participation in the 2000 Florida recount contest, where truly he played a peripheral role at best. He did, however, recruit a certain John Roberts to the Bush Team. The rest, including Obamacare, is history.

Heidi, who began her career in D.C. as a political intern, emerged more successfully from her Bush-Cheney experience, landing a job working for Condoleezza Rice as an economic policy adviser for the National Security Council in the White House.

At the White House, Heidi served as special assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, who as U.S. Trade Representative had brokered virtually every free trade deal since serving as U.S. negotiator during the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations that led to the formation of the World Trade Organization.

Zoellick, whose biography includes credentials as president of the World Bank, served as vice chairman of Goldman Sachs from 2006-2007, where he crossed paths again with Heidi who he helped  land a job with Goldman Sachs as a managing director investing money for high net worth clients.Heidi also signed up at the Council on Foreign Relations where she chaired a group advocating a North American Accord which would surrender American sovereignty to Canada and Mexico

Goldman Sachs was also the Wall Street investment bank whose job offer Ted Cruz had turned down after graduating from Harvard Law School.

Goldman Sachs resurfaces in the Cruz family saga in January 2016, when the New York Times revealed Ted Cruz had failed to report a $500,000 Goldman Sachs loan that helped him win election to the U.S. Senate in 2012.

A 2005 police report

By 2003, Ted Cruz had returned to Texas where then Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had appointed him to serve in the Solicitor General’s office, marking the start of Cruz’s political career.

In an article dated March 18, 2015, BuzzFeed reporters McKay Coppins and Megan Apper published a heavily redacted police report that described a bizarre incident involving Heidi Cruz in 2005.

According to the police report, around 10 p.m. on the night of Aug. 22, 2005, the Austin Police Department dispatched Officer Joel Davidson to an intersection a couple of miles west of the Texas City’s downtown.

“A passerby had called to report that a woman in a pink shirt was sitting on the ground near the MoPac Expressway with her head in her hands, and no sign of a vehicle nearby,” Coopins and Apper wrote. “When the officer arrived, he found the woman on a swath of grass between an onramp and the freeway. She said her name was Heidi Cruz.”

Officer Davidson next proceeded to question Heidi Cruz, whose husband, Ted, was then serving as Texas solicitor general.

“He [Officer Davidson] asked what she was doing by the expressway,” Coopins and Apper continued. “(S)he replied that she lived on nearby Hartford Street, and ‘had been walking around the area.’ She went on to tell Davidson that she was not on any medication and that she hadn’t been drinking, aside from ‘two sips of a margarita an hour earlier with dinner.’ He wrote that he ‘did not detect any signs of intoxication.’”

“A bout of depression”

While the heavily redacted police report did not claim the incident involved a suicide attempt, Officer Davidson did put into writing that he believed Cruz was a “danger to herself,” noting that he found her sitting 10 feet away from heavy traffic, unable to explain what she was doing there.

Evidently, Heidi Cruz did not take well to what appears to have been a Ted Cruz demand that she leave her lucrative Goldman Sachs job in Washington to join him in Texas, where she could play her expected role as “wife” when Ted began laying serious plans to run for political office.

“About a decade ago, when Mrs. Cruz returned from D.C. to Texas and faced a significant professional transition, she experienced a brief bout of depression,” a Ted Cruz advisor, in response to a BuzzFeed request for comment on the story.

“Like millions of Americans, she came through that struggle with prayer, Christian counseling, and the love and support of her husband and family,” statement from Cruz’s office continued.

The couple’s first daughter, Caroline, was born in 2008. She is currently on a leave of absence without pay from her position as region head for the southwest region in the investment management division of Goldman Sachs in Houston.

In a 2013 interview, Ted’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, who lives in the same condo complex in Houston as do Ted, Heidi, and their two daughters, explained she helps raise the children with the live-in nanny responsible for carrying for them.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/14/who-is-the-real-heidi-nelson-cruz/#ixzz434UuotwU

Meet Scot Sheely – TPN Moderator and political censorship

It appears that Scot Sheely has been known in the Tea Party circle for some time for his vulgar comments and deleting accounts of others whom he happens to disagree with. As a rabid Ted Cruz supporter, Scot Sheely will undoubtedly discredit and falsify documentation in justifying his banning and deleting others on political sites. The screenshot below is ample proof that Scot Sheely’s actions are only unethical by cross in political censorship.

Here is a member in the Tea Party Command Center describing Scot Sheely to a tee.

Note: .you are deleting accounts at the Tea Party Nation, of members who stand against Ted Cruz, I seen this for myself.

So who is this moderator known for deleting accounts at the Tea Party Nation, of members who stand against Ted Cruz?

A retired Air Force musician. All the screenshots below are all from websites after a google search.

I will be adding the above information to the IRS complaint #3 and as a moderator on Tea Party Nation, the owner Judson Phillips is responsible for the actions of his moderators and I an sure that Scot Sheely will try and worm his way out of any responsibility.

Since Scot Sheely like to use a image that was referring to ecomonic slavery on TPN, lets have a look at some of Scot Sheely’s caption work;

talk about racist language! What do say for yourself now Scot Sheely?

Tea Party Nation – the den of hypocrisy

Scot Sheely named in IRS Complaint against Tea Party Nation

Scot Sheely named in second IRS complaint

Scot Sheely attempts to cover up

Scot Sheely says ‘Deflector shields up!’

 

Update: 

IRS Complaint #3 has been electronically filed.

Here is the section detailing the complaint

Scot Sheely says ‘Deflector shields up!’

Like Capt Kirk in a panic, Tea Party Nation moderator Scot Sheely is in full blown denial mode and attempting to mislead and cover his actions. It’s almost hysterical watching him post misleading obvious lies.

Here is his latest post. 

 

Note that once again, Scot Sheely is commenting on an image that is 5 years old. Again, here is the email that Scot Sheely sent and the reason that ‘HE’ banned me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This will be your final warning before being permanently banned.

 

Note: there is no mention of the supposed image that Scot Sheely now claims. But a clear and direct message about an NAZI image. Scot Sheely is the NAZI!

Here is another TPN member calling out Scot Sheely for is actions.

Again supporting and acknowledging that Scot Sheely has been banning only those that support Trump.

again for the readers here, the following is the exact post by Scot Sheely on the ‘Dump Trump’

Scot Sheely is a lying POS. You can see he’s now saying something completely different. First Nazi images and now something else. Liars can’t keep their stories straight and Scot Sheely is a liar. 

Everything that is being posted here is being sent to the Trump campaign, other media outlets, social media, the IRS. 

 

Tea Party Nation – the den of hypocrisy

Scot Sheely named in IRS Complaint against Tea Party Nation

Scot Sheely named in second IRS complaint

Scot Sheely attempts to cover up

Scot Sheely attempts to cover up

Tea Party Nation moderator Scot Sheely has been posting crap to justify banning folks with an opposing opinion and choice of presidential Candidates.

In the following post

Scot Sheely is making excuses, first off in the previous posts Scot Sheely is clearly referencing Nazi images, swatstikas, etc. The image that he links is one that was created over 5 years ago and here it is.

The ignorant Scot Sheely can’t see past his nose that it depicts Hernman Cain, and because he was not a slave to the Democrat Party and wasn’t in bondage to the ecomonic slavery that the Democrats enslave. It was posted all across the internet and no one complained. However Scot Sheely has nothing else to complain about.

I guess you have to have some intelligence to be able to interpret things and Scot Sheely doesn’t have any.

Again, here is what Scot Sheely stated on banning.

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

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

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

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

This will be your final warning before being permanently banned.

Below is a photo posted by Scot Sheely and notice whom he attacks, makes fun of. Cause mocking Trump is Ok, but Cruz is protected. Note that in Scot Sheely’s statement above, he doesn’t reference the image of Cruz that was his excuse for banning, but a completely different image that was posted 5 years prior.

Scot Sheely is full of shit!

It’s OK cause it is his agenda to promote Ted Cruz, and as a moderator he thinks he’s untouchable. I wonder what the IRS will be saying, and I wonder that Judson Phillips will be says after Scot Sheely is exposed.

Again, here is the image I posted of Teddy cruz that Scot Sheely’s panties in a wad.

Scot Sheely – WORLD CLASS HYPOCRITE and Cruzbot Roach!

Here is another pserson that as been banned by Scot Sheely;

 

Tea Party Nation – the den of hypocrisy

Scot Sheely named in IRS Complaint against Tea Party Nation

Scot Sheely named in second IRS complaint

Scot Sheely attempts to cover up

Opportunist Ted Cruz: “Donald Trump is Responsible” For Organized Chicago Violence (video)…

Posted on March 11, 2016 by sundance

This is quite stunning even for a politician as low as Ted Cruz.  Senator Cruz has a prime opportunity to highlight the intolerance of the left.  Instead he choses to attack Donald Trump:

At a media availability in Chicago, Ted Cruz basically blamed Donald Trump for the violence and protests that occurred earlier in the day at a Donald Trump rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago. The rally had to be cancelled due to safety concerns (link)

Yes, Ted Cruz advocates the political equivalent of her skirt was too short, and she deserved to be raped for it.

But Senator Ted Cruz wasn’t alone taking the opportunity to blame Donald Trump and praise the behavior of leftists, MoveOn.Org, Black Lives Matter, F**k The Police, Occupy Wall Street and professional Anarchists.

Fox News pundits, led by Megyn Kelly, were quick with the narrative to pile on, claiming Donald Trump should reasonably accept the United States no longer allows freedom of association, and free speech should be curtailed in favor of inclusive, more politically sensitive, speech.

Share this:

After the anarchists were able to shut down the venue, a contingent of the organized faction moved to Trump Tower where they stood and cursed at families entering and exiting the hotel.

Is this who you want in the White House? An opportunist that will blame anyone for political gain.

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.