Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Are Constitutionally Ineligible to Run for US President
"I'll tell ya...when it comes to Cruz, some of you guys put the blinders on, refuse to do your homework, and then call others "crazy" for being more intelligent and rational. Maybe attacking the rational and intelligent is just one more outward symptom which shows how decadent and fallen our society has become, let alone shows by example what damage our intentionally poor and purposely misguided public education system has for fruition to claim as its own.
August 10, 2015
Ted Cruz is Constitutionally Illegal to Run for President. That Is a Legal Fact by firackeon Apr 1, 2015
We do not need a Presidential candidate or President so badly, that we have to go outside the pool of two citizen parents at their birthon US soil for a President, regardless of the candidate's ethnicity.
So just what makes Ted Cruz, a jus soli born CANADIAN NATIONAL, who retained his BIRTH citizenship (and for all we know STILL POSSESSES it despite claiming only months ago he would junk it) as being in any way eligible to the U.S. Presidency? Nothing.
In fact, by example, we have the ineligibility of F.D.R. Jr. to guide us on the matter. The N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 - 4, by legal example demonstrated that legally Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House” since his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate.
"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...." US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5
"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
In 1787 and then in March of 1791, when the Constitution went into effect, the voting citizenry were males 21 and above. Hence citizen fathers age 21 and above were a requirement for any child to be a "Natural Born Citizen" at the time the Constitution was written and passed. Black Revolutionary War soldiers and free black land owners in small numbers, as well as Jews, and some Latins were were part of that voting citizenry, some being exclusively citizens of port cities like Philadelphia (though not all renounced foreign citizenships as a famous Supreme Court Case Decision in 1797, U.S. v. Villato 2 U.S. 370 supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/370/case.html proved).
A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off.
Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government. In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution. See also the Senate debate over the first section of what would be the 14th Amendment and what they intended as an allegiance that was still yet lesser in strength than the natural born citizen clause:
The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment also aids us in defining what constitutes jurisdiction and natural born political allegiance memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38 "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"...
What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"?
Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
If Ted Cruz was never subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, then he was NEVER a Citizen who was Naturally Born exclusively as our citizen or in any way a United States Natural Born Citizen, which again is defined as or must at least encompass the definition of not owing allegiance to anybody else and completely under the jurisdiction of the United States of America only, at birth.
At Birth Ted Cruz is Canadian first, a Cuban national through is father secondly, and in a distant third, by operation of law (INA 1952) an U.S. citizen whose internationally recognized natural born citizenship rests in Cuba through his father, NOT the United States.
Question: Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of that document, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?
Since Obama is NOT President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, we currently have no de facto President by operation of the Constitution of the United States, but are as if on auto-pilot some kind of alien usurper and oligarchy (through him) in place, which is probably why we operate annually without orderly Congressional Budgets, and it follows that Cruz would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as well as Obama operates under. Worse than that, as a second major party illegal to be POTUS under the Constitution designate (not being a U.S. Natural Born Citizen), an elected Cruz (or Rubio, or Jindal, by examples also) could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!
In debating the Natural Born Citizen issue, very few, and I mean very few, are cognizant and mature enough to dare try to consider these legal questions, and I have yet to find one who will answer them rather than practicing libelous name-calling and temper tantrums in response.
1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law (that can be affirmed as so by an example of those having Article III standing and suing them) or not?
2 Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.5 in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth?
3. Does a United States Natural Born allegiance also under a Constitution where the paternal citizenship governed the nationality of the child was in effect when it was written, does follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not? And if the claim if no longer, where is the Constitutional Amendment that alters or denies what the founders intended, as there is NO Amendment that states anywhere that a Citizen Mother can give birth to a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in or out of the United States with an alien father, and alter what the Constitution clearly under the laws in effect clearly forbad?
By example as to what relevant paternal power was in effect legally, less than 30 years after the Constitution was ratified,
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820: "When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The CIVIL LAW DETERMINED THE CONDITION OF THE SON BY THAT OF THE FATHER. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.”
4. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) @ 448 – 450, Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253(1814) @ 289-290 -on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?
5. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840) @ 570-71; and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5 “natural born citizen” clause or not?
6. Is not the Constitutional Intent of the Constitution the following definition in which “…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
and the debate regarding the meaning behind the 14th Amendment was clearly specified in The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 where Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred that “The provision is, ‘that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’… What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
…It cannot be said of any…who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ "
[The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment is at: memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
see Part 4 (column 2), page 2890, Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893,
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895]
Even moreso, Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.”
Ted Cruz was born in CANADA, and has a father who was a Cuban National at the time of his birth there...and was reared as a Canadian birth citizen at least 3 years in Canada, and REFUSED to renounce his Canadian citizenship before 18 and before age 21. How can an alien born alien citizen claim to be Naturally part of the United States when the 90% of the world's nations recognize paternal power governing foreign births, and a Treaty with Canada places limitations and restrictions upon the child? Further, Cruz fails the Wong Kim Ark test of sole birth and sole claim of citizenship to the U.S. only as well as fails even the most basic 14th Amendment Section 1 intent at the time that was passed AFTER the Civil War. It would be like saying any animal or plant which is indigenous to an alien country (pick any country around the world by example here), and then magically it is no longer alien but natural born and indigenous to the US, even if it doesn't naturally grow there, so long as you added USA produced Miracle Gro to the seedling, and then claim the soil the seed was found in gave it rights to be called indigenous to a country it was not natural for the seed to be a part of.
The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition:“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59
Under Constitutional Intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Article 2.1.5, the successful US Government Attorney of later Wong Kim Ark fame shows us that the Paternal Link (that through the Father's Status) is essential in determining who is or is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen: “Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth." – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.” www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins
In 1833, in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473
“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen [to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War] to become President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties."
And what was Cruz until allegedly last summer, if at all he ever gave it up? A foreign Citizen, a Canadian, who is NOT allowed to have foreign birth citizenship into his 40s et cetera and be able to run for President, because such a one is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen but one who by definition will have foreign influence weaved into executive councils and duties. If his father was a World War II Austrian Nazi who served in the SS for 8 years of distinguished service, and his mother was an American Citizen, though born in Canada, I seriously doubt any in America's Media and Conservative Right would be so blindly defending a Heinrich Mayer who operated under the same citizenship circumstances as a Ted Cruz as having the right to announce his candidacy to run for POTUS (President of the United States). In such a circumstance, you think such a comparison was a no brainer and a slam dunk. For almost ALL Cruz supporters, that is NOT the case...and short of mass hypnosis, why the mass stubborn stupidity?
The term Natural Born Citizen isn't just a term thrown out there, it has a purpose that was intensely debated and worded so as to protect us from foreign influence, be they British, Papal, or anything else foreign born and having foreign favor to first over that of the PEOPLE of the United States of America.
Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ 12 supreme.justia.com/us/121/1/case.html
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument."
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html states:
" ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."
Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote: "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167
“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.”
Ted Cruz was NOT born in the United States of parents who were its citizens, and therefore is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen.
Just because we have one USURPER illegally and unconstitutionally wielding power he legally can have VOIDED OUT Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ page 180 because he is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen (i.e., Obama), does not mean we should let the second major party finalize the destruction of the Constitution by also placing their own illegal in office, so they can dissolve the Republic for a full blown Communist-Socialist dictatorship replacement one. Ted Cruz openly admits to being foreign born with a publication of proof by his Canadian birth certificate,but because the United States Congress and the G.W. Bush Administration has openly DEFIED the Constitution and placed a foreign usurper in Barack Obama in office, who by his own claim (until 2007 at Harvard as well as through Acton and Dystel, etc.) was born in Kenya, who in May 2009
affirmed his Kenyan birth diplomatically through official U.S. Department of State recognition of the same with Kenya, whose birth in Kenya is affirmed repeatedly by officials of Kenya's Government both formally and informally, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT Thursday, 25th March, 2010 The House met at 2.30 p.m. p. 31 ...2nd paragraph [Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]: "...how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion."www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25
and whose birth in Kenya was repeated as affirmed especially when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm ...then since the Dems have their own illegal and usurper in open defiance of the U.S. Constitution in office under color of the "race card" as their "authority", the Republicans might as well have their own Bilderburger spouse controlled illegal up next to hand away this Republic and finalize its destruction into international obscurity as a world power "that once was" and will be no more? Hell NO! Let's stop illegals from aspiring to the Presidency regardless of race or skin color NOW! Obama needs to be voided, and Cruz needs to have his U.S. Citizenship claims revoked and have his treasonous ( ) kicked back to Canada where his birth citizenship rests and where he belongs.
As for Congress winking at the Law and ignoring the Constitution regarding the Natural Born Citizenship requirement clause in the Constitution:
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442 “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) @ 180 "... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,
that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
U.S. Constitution, Article. VI."This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...."
The Law is equal for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or what have you. Rubio and Jindal are also unqualified for POTUS, just so you know. No U.S. Citizen Father at the time of birth, no U.S. soil birth also, no Constitutionality to run for POTUS...this is for everybody. But I would sure appreciate it if Steve can either evaluate and make America aware of Cruz's
mass hypnosis tactics at the very least. Thanks.
I used to verbally support both George Bush's. I have since come to realize George W. BETRAYED the U.S. and committed treason during his second term, especially in his purposeful failure to vet Obama while taking a heavy gold necklace from Saudi Arabia. Could there be a Masonic Cultic connection where those above the 33rd degree are commanded, that "even if a brother commit murder or treason, you will shelter them, aid them, and protect them...you will use all influences and powers in your possession in the world of men...you will not submit to actions of dullcare in the defense of your brother though he has committed treason or killed not one of our own...you will not let any capture or kill them" or words to this effect? For revealing such language, that's supposed to be a death sentence...but since I am not a member, oh well. I view Jeb with the same disdain as his brother George W.. So the answer is no, I am NOT a Jeb Bush supporter. To say I work for a candidate of any kind has no grounds, and absolutely FALSE on your part to so accuse me of. If you find an open conspiracy by members of both parties boorish, then by all means, DON"T read Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's favorite author, who reveals how that both parties are becoming undistinguished from one another. Edmund Burke once wrote that such a merger to where major parties are indistinguishable would doom any republic within a century. Perhaps we are on a much faster track than that.
Let me reply with an article that Devvy Kidd put out on News with the Views as to why people want Cruz to get a likewise pass, and what a Cruz disqualification might aid us in doing.
She posts at www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd670.htm
WHY TED CRUZ MUST BE DECLARED ELIGIBLE
April 2, 2015
Once again a constitutionally ineligible individual has declared his candidacy for president of these united States of America.
Once again another battle rages that should have been addressed in 2008 when the criminal impostor in the White House, Barack Obama (Known aliases: Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham), who also lied on his Illinois Bar Application when he said he has never used another name was allegedly elected. The usurper was/is using Barack Obama then but his friends at Occidental College knew him only as Barry Soetoro. Barack Obama was simply made up by the pathological liar at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Instead of addressing Barry's ineligibility back then, the criminal enterprise went all the way to submission of the electoral college vote to the Outlaw Congress on January 9, 2009. Every member of that body of politicians sat mute - Ron Paul - all of them - and allowed the electoral college vote to stand. When the usurper ran again in 2012 and allegedly won (which would not have been possible without all the vote fraud in both elections), once again all of them - both parties- allowed Barry Soetoro to steal the office of president.
On January 14, 2009, Chief Justice Roberts had cases on the docket where Barry Soetoro was the defendant or was the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices had already held two 'Distribution for Conferences' on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama's citizenship ineligibility; there were others also ignored by the 'high' court.
On the date above Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case, Soetoro, in private. Two days later,Roberts sat down to discuss the case with the other justices after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! There was still the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23, 2009. Again, Chief Justice Roberts was to sit in that private meeting to discuss whether the case should go to oral arguments. In my lifetime I have never seen such in your face shenanigans by a member of the U.S. 'Supreme' Court.
In April 2010, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas joked during a congressional house sub-committee hearing:
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”
“We're evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber."
Yeah, that's real funny, Clarence. The U.S. Supreme Court is evading the eligibility issue. So, Clarence, why didn't you just come out in 2008 with Leo's case and the others and say: "Hey - we're going to evade the eligibility issue so don't waste your time and money."?
The reason why Ted Cruz must be declared eligible is because if he isn't eligible then neither is the criminal impostor in the White House.
Barry Soetoro's father was a foreign national on U.S. soil. He had not applied for citizenship and in fact, there was question as to whether or not he should be allowed to stay in the U.S., as his personal behavior was in the slutty category. Soetoro's mother was a natural born citizen. Soetoro was born with dual citizenship and no amount of political high jinx and lies can change that fact. He was and always will be constitutionally ineligible to be president of this country.
Ted Cruz's mother is a natural born citizen. His father was a foreign national in the U.S. with Cuban citizenship; he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005. Ted Cruz was born with dual citizenship: Cuban and American. No different than Soetoro.
But, Cruz has taken the position that 'natural born' means he can change his citizenship at age 44 (he will be 45 in December) and magically turn himself into a natural born citizen. Well, Ted, it doesn't work that way. Natural born means when you're born. This doesn't seem to matter to Cruz or some of his ardent supporters. I tried to find the interview conducted at one of Cruz's events a couple of years ago, but was unsuccessful. The reporter ask one of Cruz's supporters about his eligibility. The woman replied, "We don't care. We want him as president." Does that make her any different than the ethically bankrupt who have supported the fraudulent stealing of the office of president by Soetoro? It does not. That Cruz supporter is just as willing to crap on the Constitution as Barry's supporters.
Ted Cruz announced in 2013 he was giving up his Canadian citizenship; it was finalized in 2014. However, that does not make him a natural born citizen. And, like Barry/Obama, Cruz is using the same deceitful tactic by making fun of the citizenship issue: Ted Cruz Cracks to Press: ‘I Am Secretly a Citizen of Ethiopia’
Gov. Bobby Jindal is not a natural born citizen as proclaimed in this piece: "They arrived Feb 1, 1971, and a bit over four months later, on June 10, 1971, Piyush Jindal was born at Woman's Hospital in Baton Rouge, a natural-born U.S. citizen, who like every other child born in America, could, constitutionally, grow up to be president."
Jindal's mother was five months pregnant when they arrived on U.S. soil and obtained green cards. Neither of his parents were either natural born or U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. I believe Jindal became a U.S. citizen via the fraudulent 'anchor baby' bastardization of the Fourteenth Amendment. His parents were not illegals since they obtained green cards, but they were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
The same situation exists for Marco Rubio who is rumored to announce throwing his hat into the ring on April 13th. Rubio also doesn't give a damn about the constitution. He has simply brushed off the legal fact that he is constitutionally ineligible. Rubio was born in May 1971 in Miami, Florida. His parents did not become U.S. citizens until November 1975 - four years after his birth. Rubio's parents were naturalized in 1975, so neither of his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. I believe Rubio, like Jindal, became a U.S. citizen via the fraudulent 'anchor baby' myth.
The stealing of the presidency beginning in 2008 was breathtaking in scope. I doubt the majority of adult aged Americans in this country have any idea of just what went on to get Barry and McCain declared constitutionally eligible. This piece is a must read because it factually lays out how an ineligible candidate was able to usurp the office of president. This piece is long, but read it over lunch, coffee in the morning or on the weekend: A Congressional Natural Born Citizen Parts I, II & III: Who Knew What & For How Long?
Now, all of the opinions that Cruz is a natural born citizen is based on his mother being a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth:
• Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president? (Updated)
• Lawyers: Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president
• Yes, Ted Cruz is Constitutionally Eligible to Be President
• No, Canada: Sen. Ted Cruz has formally shed his dual citizenship (June 2014)
There are dozens more which all chirp the same story line: one parent a U.S. citizen. However, that is not the definition of a natural born citizen. In some of the pieces above you'll see reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1790 Naturalization Act which are covered in the next set of links below. We know the nearly 100 eligibility cases filed to stop Barry/Obama from stealing the White House were dismissed and never heard on the merits of the argument: who is a natural born citizen? The Outlaw Congress, every damn one of them unleashed the horror of Barack Obama on this country because of their cowardice or in the case of the ethically bankrupt Democratic/Commnist Party minions - they knew they could use the race card to get that waste of oxygen in the White House on the ballot.
For those unfamiliar with Leo Donofrio, he lives in New Jersey, he's a lawyer and filed the first eligibility case against Barry and McCain in 2008. His case was not thrown out on the judicial hallucination called standing, but was killed by the U.S. Supreme Court and their duplicity. This piece deals with Juan McCain: John McCain: Citizen of Panama At Birth (Sept 2009)
Historical and legal analysis: Natural Born at Birth (Dec 2008) - This is a lengthy piece by Leo, but the research is impeccable and the only way we are going to stop ineligible candidates is with hard facts.
The articles below are not filled with speculation or the "my candidate" syndrome meaning I don't care what the U.S. Constitution says. They all deal with historical facts. They are by no means the only ones, but I feel clearly cover in-depth why Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are not constitutionally eligible. Since this is a problem not likely to go away (Cruz is running despite knowing he will be in the same fight as Barry Soetoro over his eligibility and is counting on media like FOX to give him cover) it is imperative Americans and that means big shot anchors like Hannity, O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly and the rest of them that crushed Obama's ineligibility learn the real definition of natural born citizen. Ted Cruz's children can run for president because Cruz is a U.S. citizen. I do not believe Rubio or Jindal's children can since both of them were born to parents holding only green cards and no flavor of citizenship. I could be wrong; I'm sure my email box will fill up.
• The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child's Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth (Sept 2009)
• Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defined "Natural Born Citizenship" in 1789 (April 2010)
• Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to be President (Mar 2013)
• The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” (June 2013)
• Congressional Research Service: Ted Cruz Not Qualified
• Papers Discussing Natural Born Citizen Meaning
I know everyone has time issues, but unless Cruz and Rubio are stopped and if one of them should get elected, we might as well just burn the U.S. Constitution. The reason the framers grand fathered in the natural born citizen clause was to ensure a president's first loyalty would be to our constitutional republic. One can see just where Barry/Obama stands on that issue. No president in the history of this country has hated America more than the current occupant of the White House and done so much to destroy her. I have no doubt whatsoever that Cruz and Rubio do love America, but if they get away with becoming president it will mean anyone can hold that office just like the unvetted criminal in the White House. Do we want another Barry/Obama down the road?
What can be done?
We need to focus on the states right now getting them to stand firm against the Outlaw Congress and the usurper in the White House. When the time comes - if and it's a big if - any of those three were to get the GOP nomination, I hope lawsuits are brought in as many states as possible to keep them off the ballot. As we know from the nearly 100 lawsuits to keep the criminal impostor in the WH off the ballot, suing the Secretary of State is a waste of time and money because all the judges involved were and are cowards. Almost all of the cases were filed after the habitual liar in the White House took office. The judges weren't going to touch throwing the impostor president out of office.
No, the target would be the Republican National Committee for putting forth a candidate on state ballots who is constitutionally ineligible. It's fraud - just like the Democratic/Communist Party USA did in 2008. Maybe even a RICO lawsuit. In the meantime, Cruz and his mouth pieces are trying to deflect away from the issue and I suspect Rubio will do the same. You might send each of them a short letter: You're not constitutionally eligible; both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth and we will file lawsuits to keep you off the ballot. Just maybe they will drop out of the race. Can't raise enough money, don't want to lose their powerful seats in the Senate, some excuse to evade the real issue.
You can take money to the bank the controlled media and that includes cable networks like FOX will continue to insist both are eligible - although there have been a few useful fools out there who likely will be silenced once they're told to back off Cruz's eligibility:
Cruz 'as eligible as Obama is' - House member deflects MSNBC host's 'birther' assault: "MSNBC host Chris Matthews didn't have the slightest issue with Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility. But he is grilling Republican supporters of Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential ambitions with reckless “birther” abandon." Act surprised: the Republican house member being interviewed did the usual political tap dance with a stupid smirk on his face - but read his words. They know. They all know. “I'm telling you that President Obama is the president,” Farenthold said. “If he's eligible to be president, Ted Cruz is.” “Was he legitimately elected president?” Matthews responded. “I wasn't in Congress to make that determination,” Farenthold said. “That was determined before I got here.”
I must mention Donald Trump here because he's stuck his foot in his mouth, again. He's on the eligibility issue going after Cruz being born in Canada instead of the meat of the issue: both parents being U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. I wish he'd shut his trap because all he's doing is distracting people instead of educating them on what natural born really means.
Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts
Email Address *
And so the big lie, one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated against the people of this country stays in place because (1) Republicans want the White House in 2016 and (2) as I said, to declare Cruz ineligible would cause a massive constitutional crisis: a usurper is sitting in the Oval Office and any laws, EO, treaties or other legal documents he signed are null and void - and they are - every last one of them.
1 - How to pack a big event and make it seem you're popular & have lots of support: Attendance at Ted Cruz's 2016 announcement was mandatory for Liberty University students
2 - Text of A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
3 - States must fight legal fiction called 'anchor babies'
4 - Immigration: The Myth Of The 'Anchor Baby'
5 - Full Audio: Dr. Terry Lakin On Challenging Obama’s Article II Constitutional Eligibility - His Life Was Threatened
[Just a short note about 9/11. The cost of America's undeclared "war" (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion borrowed dollars - massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation, but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or give a copy as a present. I've purchased half a dozen copies and given them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It's very powerful simply because it's one 'ordinary' man's story who ask a simple question that led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in this film that many have never heard about but everyone should.]
In 1789, if you read David Ramsay, you will note that VOTING CITIZENS, or men above the age of 21, gave their children the right to be Natural Born Citizens. Without a U.S. Citizen Father, it is impossible to have any child born as a United States Natural Born Citizen. The 14th Amendment debates specifically tell us that the MINIMAL INTENT of a 14th Amendment Section 1 citizen, which is not as stringent as a United States Natural Born Citizen, is that there was to be one sole nationality and jurisdiction upon the child born in the way specified to reach its threshold, and that is something that both Cruz and Obama have in common of violating. Without a U.S. Citizen father at the time of birth, as is the case with Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, there can be NO CLAIM of U.S. Natural Born Citizenship under the Constitution of the United States. A claim of co-citizenship or dual-citizenship under current immigration and naturalization laws governing anchor-babies, yes; but NOT natural born citizenship as the father could just as easily pack it up as a resident and move back to the country where they belong. Further, both Cruz and Obama violated U.S. Laws in not denouncing foreign citizenship by the age of 21.
September 28, 2005; while at Harvard University in a Q & A session, Justice Breyer described the Supreme Court’s role as “100 percent law interpretation” and “much more mechanical than you might think.”
And while that is not so much the case anymore, as they have been corrupted and co-opted, if we are going to win arguments even when most are in denial, we have to keep at it as if arguing in a court of law with the public, despite the Central Intelligence Agency now being contracted since July 2013 to have to aid in a Domestic disinformation campaign against us, as if they are engaged to overthrow a foreign government rather than their own. Compare www.infowars.com/cia-will-now-openly-propagandize-americans/
The level of mass hypnosis techniques to direct people to mindlessly follow along, rather than behavioral advertising techniques, has never been used on the scale it is being used currently. Most people, like in George Orwell's "1984" go thumpa-thump-thump moving to the rhythm, not caring what they are being fed to believe. The same is with so many today. So many will not care about the lyrics, they want a certain primitive beat as if dumb natives working themselves into a state of altered consciousness. And it is in that state, that they can be manipulated, molded, directed, controlled in ways they have no idea of and probably never will. And why should we continue to do right?
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Edmund Burke, Speech at a County Meeting of Buckinghamshire (1784).
And in stating a summary of much of what Burke writes about, an 1867 lecture once famously may be the starting point as to attributing this summary of Edmund Burke's work as if it were a single quote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Vattel states what amounts to be a rebuke of Ted Cruz's and Obama's birth conditions, making the claim of their illegitimacy open.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
When Ted Cruz was interviewed by the GOP Texas State Committee, he was stated as saying the ff. (temporarily protecting the identity of the witness, for the moment confidential says JB Williams www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm )
"(Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.” Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don't have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
Cruz: “I would agree.”
Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”
Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.” "
Did you get that part above, when Ted Cruz was asked what the definition of a [United States] Natural Born Citizen is today, he correctly answered
“Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” That is, two citizen parents of the country you are born in, and being born on that same soil your parents are citizens of, so that it is only NATURAL (not by operation of law or any means of decision on your part) that you are its born citizen as if a citizen of and only of and forever in that one nation as having only that one citizenship. Period.
And now, what? His wife Heidi and the Council on Foreign Relations gave him an interview and told him, what, "Ah...the Constitution constismuushion. The hell with it. Ah, skip that. You want to run? We'll make it happen. Just know you are beholden to us, and you know what we want after we get you in, or else." Was that it?
I'll tell ya...when it comes to Cruz, some of you guys put the blinders on, refuse to do your homework, and then call others crazy for being more intelligent and rational. Maybe attacking the rational and intelligent is just one more outward symptom which shows how decadent and fallen our society has become, let alone shows by example what damage our intentionally poor and purposely misguided public education system has for fruition to claim as its own.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.