Cruz supporters and a repealed Act of 1790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Citing a law that was repealed five years later is simply childish and shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.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The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790.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That is your first mistake by citing a law that was repealed and then the Naturalization Act of 1795 was again repealed in 1802.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

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 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.

Tea Party Nation – the den of hypocrisy

hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity;

Tea Party Nation has once again proven to be the den of hypocrisy and false patriots.

In a debate where the Cruzbots have once again proven to be wrong and decietful to the point of outright lying and misrepresenting the facts.

One moderator stands out as the hypocrite that he is and exposes why Tea Party Nation is listed as a Hate Group.

Intelligence Files: Tom DeWeese”. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved August 8, 2012.

Here is an set of images that I posted.

First off Glenn Beck stated that Trump supporters were Brown Shirts a clear indication and reference to Adolf Hitler’s group.

Hence I referenced Glenn Beck for as the propaganda minister for the Cruz campaign.

In the next image, I presented Ted Cruz as NWO as numerous references to Ted Cruz and his wife Heidi as the President of the North American Union. Google Heidi Cruz and learn that she worked for the CFR and North American Union, the destruction of the American sovereignty. But then the Cruzbots over at Tea Party Nation are the low information voters that Cruz needs.

Not to mention that thiose posting there were in total denial of Glenn Beck’s threats of stabbing Trump. After Scot Sheely denied and tried to cover for Glenn Beck I posted the following video.

Permalink Reply by nobarack on Tuesday

They say that Trump supporters are diehard, but Glen Beck with his threats towards Trump show just exactly how delusional the Teddy Cruz supporters are. That the media is pushing Cruz and Rubio, should only expose how corrupt the media is. The peoiple are waking up to the fact that the politicans both the democrats and republicans are playing the American people towards their own destructive ends and one reason for Trumps popularity is that he is not a politician and the GOP elite is very paranoid of losing their base. A base that they have lied to and the people are not buyinmg their crap again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BLADES on Tuesday

WOW!!!!…beck is threatening trump?????…HUH…could you show some examples please????

and how is the media pushing cruz and rubio when trump has gotten 3 times more air time????

trump is no more than a circus clown and his record proves it!!!!

I would say since you have a desperate desire to just shoot your mouth off with a bunch of lies and falsehoods while talking about how great trump is kinda discribes the  typical diehard trump

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nobarack on Tuesday

the Secret Service visited Beck cause it was widely reported

But here you go.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/breaking-secret-service-vis…

Updated Link direct to youtube

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/04/glenn-beck-if-i-got-close-enough-…

Updated link direct to youtube

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BLADES on Tuesday

your kidding right????  beck was joking about stabbing his producer Stu…and if you would pay attention you would know that….

this is one of those things that makes the daily caller out to be another progressive bias media sources…and they are the only ones that didnt retract the story

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nobarack on Tuesday

no Beck threatened Trump.

Glenn Beck offered a rather violent answer Friday to what he would have done in the shoes of Donald Trump’s opponents on the debate stage Thursday night, or so it would have seemed.

“I don’t know what I would have done if I were sitting in their shoes. I can’t say it that way,” Beck said on his radio program, according to audio posted by the Daily Caller. “If I were on the stage, I would have said, ‘Have you been listening to him tonight? Have you been listening to what I say about him? I believe these things.'”

Beck then went on to say, “if I were close enough, and had a knife, really, I mean, the stabbing just wouldn’t stop.”

Beck’s co-host, Stu Burguiere, clarified on Twitter that Beck was speaking to him, not to Trump. “I mocked his error and he jokingly threatened me,” Burguiere tweeted.

The radio host has supported Ted Cruz’s candidacy, announcing his endorsement in January.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BLADES on Tuesday

this was and is a false story from the start …or you would have posted the audio of it …whats this fixation with beck anyway…hes a nobody

now if you want to jump over to the DUMP TRUMP thread I can show you several videos of trump actually threatening a wide range of people

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scot Sheely on Tuesday

I heard the original audio the day it was broadcast.

I also heard the replay of it later on during the next broadcast.

I also heard Beck at CPAC explain on video exactly what he meant.

At no time did he refer to stabbing any of the candidates.

If you actually listened to the entire audio clip of that segment, or at least more than the tiny little soundbite that the liberal media has posted,

you would absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Glenn Beck

was referring to ‘stabbing’ his producer and co-host ‘Stu’ (real name is Steve)

and not a single one of the candidates.

Perhaps you’ve never listened to the Glenn Beck show before,

as a lot of liberals just don’t do that kind of thing.

I fully understand if you were actually tuned into the Alan Colmes show instead. That would make perfect sense of your situation.

Next time, try actually finding the original, unedited audio and listening to it before you pontificate on a situation that you only heard lamestream liberal media soundbites for.

Thanks.

Permalink Reply by nobarack on Tuesday

posted the audio

But since you wanted audio, it’s all over net and people are disgusted with Beck

video

Permalink Reply by BLADES on Tuesday

talk about desperate trump supporters…pathetic

Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell 1 hour ago

Thanks for the video nobarack! Beck is way over the top isn’t he? Spoke of repeatedly slashing the leading candidate for President. On hundreds of radio stations

And Cruz shares a stage with this nut-job? Unbelievable. Cruz must really be hurting for support.

I listened to Beck this morning while driving through the state of Ohio. He was on his best behavior. Didn’t once call Tea Partiers who support Trump bigots, racists or anything like that today!

I note that Cruz and his people berate Trump because David Duke of the KKK supports Trump. Not Trump supporting Duke, but Duke likes Trump.

That’s Trump’s fault? Yet Cruz hangs around with Glenn Beck. And that’s just fine with the Cruz people!

Now, who really are the low information voters?

 That being said Scot Sheely’s panties were in wad and after being exposed as the liar that he is, decided to ban me.

Here is the text of what he claims is the violation. I highlighted in RED what he claims is the violation.

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.

Here is Scot Sheely’s post concerning the images posted.

Reply by Scot Sheely 2 minutes ago

Just a quick FYI, guys, I deleted those offensive Nazi images that were posted in this thread and gave the member who posted them a one month time out, as he had been warned about doing that and other issues as well.

So you will know, saying that a politician like Barack Obama, for example, is acting like Hitler is ok, but to actually show vivid images of Hitler not in the context of a thread that is speaking about the holocaust or a similar event is not acceptable.

Please, I know that we are all very passionate about the election and our chosen candidates this year, but showing Anti-Semitic, Nazi or KKK types of images are not allowed here.

Thanks, I hope that clarifies things a bit. If you feel inclined to do so, you can review the TOS (Terms Of Service) HERE. There are several items listed that pertain to this type of thing without spelling it out verbatim.

Hope that helps avoid problems or confusion for anyone else. We appreciate everyone who posts here, even if they disagree with you or someone else, but racist or hate groups or similar imagery are strictly verboten.

I would like to now expose Tea Party Nation for the hypocrisy that it maintains.

Here is a composite of several images in the Tea Party Nation image library; Mind you this is just a sample but it shows Nazi symbols, swastikas, and others with nothing being done. Because if they contain a target that they agree with, then it’s OK, but it anything that exposes their hypocrisy, then that is another matter.

Note once again that Scot Sheely has stated 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.

What a buch of crap. After several email attempts to Judson Phillips, owner of Tea Party Nation and receiving no response and filing a formal complaint against Scot Sheely and demanding that he himself be banned for he himslf has posted images (Eric Holder in the jail outfit) with the Soviet Hammer and scickle.

Below is one of the emails that I sent to Judson Phillips.

As have either disregarded my emails concerning Scot Sheely’s actions. I have decided to supply you with additional information that unless take the appropriate action, I will be transmitting to various Patriot groups exposing the hypocritical and unethical values of Tea Party Nation and it’s moderators.

 

There, that should clear up what a hypocrite Scot Sheely is. A Cruzbot roach that is thin skinned and unable to handle being proven wrong.

Here is Tea Party Nations blog postings;

 

As a final note, Tea Party Nation has the honor of being listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and is the only Tea Party-related group to be noted as such.

So go ahead Scot Sheely. I will be updating all social media with your hypocrisy  exposed and I have passed this along to Judson and Shelly Phillips, it’s out on several sites and your soft underbelly of being a shill for an illegal candidate.

Have fun. I’ll be posting. Keep watching.

I am also filing a IRS complaint as Tea Party Nation solicits contributions and Scot Sheely’s actions as documented about are in violation of not only TPN posted Terms of Service, they are also in violation of internet protocal.

Have fun 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

Cruz family mentally ill?

Cruz Father: Ted Cruz “Anointed” To “Bring the Spoils of War to the Priests”

 

what a sick family

 

Cruz launches his own ‘Fight the Smears’ website to deceive the public

Teddy Cruz in the tradition of Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears has launched a website dedicated to misrepresenting the facts concerning his eligibility. Teddy’s website

Here is the Teddy Cruz talking points

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to be President?

• Ted Cruz was born to an American mother—born in Delaware—and was therefore a U.S. Citizen time of his birth.  That makes Cruz a natural-born citizen who is eligible to be president.

• The top constitutional lawyers in the country under Presidents (Neal Katyal) and Bush (Paul Clement) conclusively agree that “[d]espite the happenstance of birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” because he was born of an American mother.
• No constitutional scholar believes Cruz is ineligible to be president.  Even Laurence Tribe and Thomas Lee, who are often cited as critics, believe he is eligible.

• The threat of a lawsuit is not serious. Even if someone were to gain standing, a difficult first step, no legal expert believes that any court in the land would rule against Cruz.

 

Now here are the facts;

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Teddy Cruz was born in Canada. Here is Teddy Cruz’s Birth Certificate. In an attempt confuse the issue, they list where is mother was born and not Teddy’s birth location. Talk about deception. The United States Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray in 1898 stated it clearly.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…” ~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Where was Teddy Cruz born? Canada.

Teddy Cruz attempts to equate a citizen at birth with a Natural Born Citizen. This is false misleading and again deceptive.

First off There is no evidence that any paperwork was filed after Teddy birth with the US Consulate, which would have been required.

In the following United States Supreme Court Case Rogers v. Bellei (1971), proving that like Belli, Teddy Cruz was born in a foreign country to a foreign father and a US mother. The court held that Belli was a ‘Naturalized’ citizen by virtue of someone who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.

“Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, 1971

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who 4 years earlier wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971):

“Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.” (emphasis added)

In the United States Supreme Court case of Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

Another snippet in the same paragraph is “there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” because he was born of an American mother.”

Again, outright lies and deception.

Here is what the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ means.

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

Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866

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

again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court

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

-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

 

As for the:

No constitutional scholar believes Cruz is ineligible to be president.  Even Laurence Tribe and Thomas Lee, who are often cited as critics, believe he is eligible.

 

Cruz—was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Tribe wrote that originalists would argue the Constitution’s framers likely intended “natural born”—a constitutional prerequisite for becoming U.S. president—to mean physically born in the United States. By these standards, he continued, Cruz should be ineligible to hold the nation’s highest office.

 

In simple truth,

Was Ted Cruz born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty?

The answer is NO, and that can be the only answer.

Ted Cruz was born in a foreign country, to a foreign national.

 

• The threat of a lawsuit is not serious. Even if someone were to gain standing, a difficult first step, no legal expert believes that any court in the land would rule against Cruz.

Really, if there were no issue and the previous points were irrelevant when why this talking point.

Answer. Because Ted Cruz like Barack Obama realizes that the only thing that can prevent an ineligible candidate from getting placed on the ballot in the first place is an educated electorate. The democrats have already threatened legal action against Ted Cruz if he’s elected and they will not only have standing, but the resources to eliminate any chance Ted Cruz has.

The most damning evidence is Teddy’s own Canadian Citizenship documentation 

It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a CRBA form with a U.S. Consulate at the time of birth.

The statutes governing this naturalization process state;

“A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

 

So Teddy was able to renounce his Canadian Citizenship but can not prove that he was even filed for US Citizenship when he was born.

Ted Cruz, Barack Obama and the keystone

People have been demanding that the courts remove Barack Obama, (who has occupied the Office of the President illegally) as he is not a Natural-Born Citizen as the United States Constitution requires. They have repeatedly  filed cases for redress of grievances and remedy due to his illegal and unconstitutional acts and usurpation of power. The same ineligibility that has stained the Obama presidency has now broadened to include the 2016 Presidential election with the latest travesty against the American people the Republican party is promoting Ted Cruz, who fails as a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’.

Again the people are going to the courts and election boards in a effort to seek relief and justice. This effort is ‘barking up the wrong tree’. There is a process and it has been used before.

The latest cases involving Ted Cruz and now Marco Rubio will continue to go nowhere and get lost in the shuffle. The courts and election boards will refuse to accept their responsibilities and kick the can down the road and when the dust settles and people realize that once again they not only have been denied a honest election but their past is also been hijacked and ruined.

That being the case, I have laid out the proper venue and remedy for the current mess that we are in and the reason why it may not get resolved.

The New York Board of Elections in their rejection of the case, stated it very clearly; “Objection is beyond the ministerial scope of the board. Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

Let me be clear “Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

“as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead, these voters directly elect designated intermediaries called “electors,” who almost always have pledged to vote for particular presidential and vice presidential candidates (though unpledged electors are possible) and who are themselves selected according to the particular laws of each state. Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states as well as to the District of Columbia (also known as Washington, D.C.). The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. Therefore, in total, there are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.

People are under the impression that voting on election day equates to voting for the candidates directly. This is a misconception. It is their vote for the candidates electors.

Because of this the courts have stated that the citizens do not have legal standing.

Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. State laws define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

The courts are stating that the citizens are not directly harmed by the election of the President. Regardless of the burdens and unconstitutional acts. That being the case, and since the electors are the ones that directly elect the President and Vice-President, they are the only members who directly elects the President has standing. That being stated, one venue would be to start legal proceedings against the electoral college members that voted for Barack Obama as a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Below is some brief code on Electors;

Meeting and vote of electors

§ 7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

Manner of voting

§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

Certificates of votes for president and vice president

§ 9. The electors shall make and sign six certificates of all the votes given by them, each of which certificates shall contain two distinct lists, one of the votes for President and the other of the votes for Vice President, and shall annex to each of the certificates one of the lists of the electors which shall have been furnished to them by direction of the executive of the State.

Sealing and endorsing certificates

§ 10. The electors shall seal up the certificates so made by them, and certify upon each that the lists of all the votes of such State given for President, and of all the votes given for Vice President, are contained therein.

Return to 3 USC Ch. 1, Table of Contents

In a presidential election, the popular vote simply means an aggregate of all voters from all states in America. It is quite possible that a candidate wins the popular vote (i.e. gets more votes over all) and yet loses the presidential election. This is because although Americans vote directly for their chosen candidate in the presidential election every 4 years, the president is elected by the institution called the Electoral College.

That being said, what is the correct venue?

Congress has the authority, even if the Courts do nothing!

From the following link

Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?

The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.

In this election of 2016, will it be a repeat of 1876? 1876 you ask.

The Electoral Commission was a temporary body created by Congress to resolve the disputed United States presidential election of 1876. It consisted of 15 members. The election was contested by the Democratic ticket, Samuel J. Tilden and Thomas A. Hendricks, and the Republican ticket,Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler. Twenty electoral votes, from the states of Florida,Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina, were in dispute; the resolution of these disputes would determine the outcome of the election. Facing a constitutional crisis the likes of which the nation had never seen, Congress passed a law forming the Electoral Commission to settle the result.

The Commission consisted of fifteen members: five representatives, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices. Eight members were Republicans; seven were Democrats. The Commission ultimately voted along party lines to award all twenty disputed votes to Hayes, thus assuring his victory in the Electoral College by a margin of 185-184.

Electoral Commission

To begin, there needs to be a Constitutional Crisis

A constitutional crisis is a situation that a legal system’s constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Often, generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government(e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments).

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future. For instance, the United States Constitution is silent on the question of whether states may secede from the Union; however, after the secession of several states was forcibly prevented in the American Civil War, it has become generally accepted that states cannot leave the Union.

A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government’s sovereignty, as in a coup orrevolution led by the military or civilian protesters.

A constitutional crisis can lead to government paralysis, collapse, or civil war.

A Constitutional Crisis leads to the creation of the Electoral Commission.

A Constitutional Crisis leads to the creation of the Electoral Commission. That Commission has the authority to not only vet the candidates but to disqualify those that as in the United States Constitution states ‘fail to qualify’.

The Courts will do nothing.

The arguments suggest that since the courts have determined they don’t have jurisdiction in such eligibility cases, and claim there is no effective procedure to qualify candidates in Congress, the logical result would be to have election officials, such as the Secretary of State, make such decisions.

And regarding the removal of a sitting official who is ineligible, there is state Supreme Court precedent, it was in the 1930s in North Dakota when Thomas H. Moodie was “duly elected to the office of governor,” the case explains.

Later, “It was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor,” it confirmed.

North Dakota’s historical archives document the case.

The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution

The Democrat party in 2008 and 2012 violated the United States Constitution by knowingly running an ineligible candidate that did not meet the Constitutional requirements. The Republican party is knowingly doing the same in 2016, by running Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz and Marco Rubio. Both parties have violated the United States Constitution.

Violate (break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement) a Provision (a clause in a legal instrument, a law, etc., providing for a particular matter; stipulation; proviso.) 

In simple english, both the Democrats and Republicans have violated the United States Constitution, by providing ineligible candidates to occupy and use the Office of the Presidency and it’s Constitutional powers for the destruction of the United States.

Expecting Congress to do anything is akin to having the fox guard the hen house, but also going back and asking the fox the number of hens and  expecting them all to be there. When nothing is left, oh well, you trusted the fox.

Congress would have to impeach itself for dereliction of duty and treason against the United States for anything to happen. They are complicit to the usurpation of the Presidency and crimes against the American people.

Every single member of Congress, now sitting and since 2008, knows that Barack Obama is illegitimate and a domestic enemy of the United States and his removal was warranted the minute he took the oath of office under false pretenses.

Since the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Cold Case Posse who has exposed the Obama counterfeit documents and held multiple media press conferences and exposed them for what they are with evidence to back them up. The media has remained silent. The media has disenfranchised, ridiculed, mocked people for demanding that a Congressional investigation be done and to end the mockery against the American people regarding the illegal usurpation of their nation and it’s laws.

Every member of Congress is now open to legal prosecution for their crimes against the Citizens of their jurisdiction. That jurisdiction meaning Concurrent Jurisdiction (Federal or state courts could hear) for allowing unconstitutional federal laws to be enacted and enforced in their jurisdiction (such as ObamaCare), to Exclusive jurisdiction (Only federal courts have authority to hear , state courts cannot) federal crimes including failing to uphold their oath of office to protect the United States Constitution. 

 

 

Ted Cruz is no Constitutionalist

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

As reported by MSN

(Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz asked a federal judge in Texas to throw out a challenge to his eligibility to serve if he wins, saying there’s no legal basis to question his status as a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.

The Houston (CONSTITUTIONAL) birther challenge is the highest profile of several court cases filed after Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump publicly questioned Cruz’s eligibility when the Texas senator began to narrow the billionaire’s lead in campaign polls. Judges haven’t ruled in birther cases filed in Illinois and Florida. Cruz last week urged a state judge in Chicago to dismiss the case there, saying the complaint was improperly served by e-mail.

Cruz’s lawyer said challenges to a candidate’s eligibility are premature during the primary-voting season and must wait until he’s actually elected president, when that question should be resolved by the electoral college and Congress, “not this court.”

Well, there you have it yourself.

Quote: “challenges to a candidate’s eligibility are premature during the primary-voting season and must wait until he’s actually elected president, when that question should be resolved by the electoral college and Congress, “not this court.””

In plain legalize, Cruz’s lawyer states that he can run an illegal campaign, accept money via deceit and fraud, and no one can do nothing unless he’s elected.  If Teddy Cruz is elected, the Democrats will not only challenge his eligibility, but most likely win and the Democrat candidate will win by default. Talk about being hoodwinked by both political parties, as there is ample evidence that Ted Cruz is not only ineligible, but that that he also committed fraud running for the US Senate as a Canadian citizen. Talk about building a slush fund and defrauding the American people. Ted Cruz is a weasel and snake and needs to be exposed as the liar he is.

Cruz’s campaign by soliciting campaign contributions knowing that he’s ineligible  is defrauding the American public by disenfranchising (#1) the voters by enticing them to vote for an ineligible candidate.

Sending emails soliciting campaign funds and contributions  is also wire fraud. Anyone that has donated to the Cruz campaign their rights has been violated and should demand repayment.

#1 dis·en·fran·chise

ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/

verb

gerund or present participle: disenfranchising

1. deprive (someone) of the right to vote.

   “the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification”

   • deprived of power; marginalized.

     “a hard core of kids who are disenfranchised and don’t feel connected to the school”
   • deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.

     “a measure that would disenfranchise people from access to legal advice”