Tuesday, 15 December 2015

Further On The Trump/Cruz Ticket 'Front'

further from TeaPartyC.C.: ‘What do you think about a Trump/Cruz ticket?’ - posted by Jack Sharpe - December 13

Permalink Reply by Ronald A. Nelson Col.USA (Ret) 5 hours ago (December 15)

Cruz is not qualified for the office...how easy we simply dismiss the Constitution when it fits our needs and when others do... how quick we are to call them on it.  We either honor the Constitution by obeying it or we dishonor it by disobeying it. We are either lawful or unlawful.

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Dale Heathman 2 hours ago

Col. Nelson,

Qualified for office falls on deaf ears, willful, purposeful ignorance, and self inflicted blindness. In short, many people simply do not give a sh-t anymore, if they ever truly did.

This is why I am close to leaving  posting. It is futile, a waste of time, and no good has ever come from it. People believe what they choose to swallow, and the truth of any matter be damned. Truth doesn't even exist anymore. It is all a matter of opinion.

How many people do you know will admit it when they are clearly wrong? Very, very few indeed.

The Constitution is written in language that has changed somewhat over the years, but it remains pretty clear nevertheless. Like understanding anything, it has its root in attitude of the reader and a willingness to cast aside preconceived ideas when proven false.

I generally close comments with "my view" just to let others know that I am not locked into an opinion. But, if it is absolute truth then there is no argument against it.

Cruz is either qualified, or he is not. It is not a matter of opinion. He isn't qualified.

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Debra Rae steinman 2 hours ago

According to the US Constitution, Ted Cruz is qualified to be Potus.

This is not a 'opinion', it's a fact backed up by credible evidence.


  • Reply

What makes this doubly troubling is that Cruz is a Lawyer ... and he knows that he is not qualified but ignores it.  What other parts of the Constitution will he ignore if he is elected President? 

Cruz's lacks the strong moral character... necessary to do what is correct when confronted with the law and a choice.  This is more important than his not being eligible for the Office of President. Such a weakness of moral character demonstrates he is not worthy of any office of responsibility.

Cruz has a major Character flaw... He is willing to lie about the Constitution, what other issues has he lied about?  His support for the TPP,  his support for free trade? Each of those issues is linked directly to globalism and the NWO?  Doesn't he know free trade and the Trans Pacific Partnership are directly linked to the fundamental transformation of our Nation's sovereignty?

There is more to be concerned about Sen. Cruz... than his being unqualified for the Office of President.

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Debra Rae steinman 2 hours ago

I just posted the proof that Ted Cruz is in fact constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

You say that Cruz LIED about the constitution.

The evidence I got proving Ted Cruz is in fact eligible to run for POTUS is in fact from the Constitution, from Heritage.org, and from townhall.com.


Again (while I thank you for your service) the constitution, as well as all the links I posted through out this blog in fact prove you wrong, and proves that neither Ted Cruz or the Constitution, or Heritage.org have lied about anything.

BTW where was your outrage when the FEC allowed a Muslim non citizen from a foreign nation (with no natural American citizen parents) to run for POTUS in 2012?

  • Reply

I suggest you check out the links I provided as proof of Sen. Cruz's ineligibility to hold the office of president.

As for Obama... I was one of the earliest to shout he was ineligible ... even while he was working to achieve the nomination of his party to run for president.  Do a search on this site and see how many posts I have made arguing that Obama needs to be removed as unqualified.

By the way... since when do two wrongs make something right... just because the Democrat Marxist Party runs an ineligible person for President doesn't justify the RNC doing the same.

Reposted links proving Sen. Cruz is not eligible for the office of president:

For the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen' as understood by our founders see:

Other proofs available on request... but you can do the necessary searches to discover the truth if interested. The founders used the term Citizen as the requirement for all the other Offices of Government except President.  They clearly made the citizenship requirement a more stringent test .... for President... requiring the President to be a Natural Born Citizen.  A citizen born of two parents of US Citizenship, on US Soil.

So, how does the Citizenship of a President differ for those of other offices:  A Senator or Representative must be US Citizens? However, they can be Native or Naturalized citizens. Native is not the same as natural born citizen nor is a naturalized citizen the same as a native or natural born citizen.

A native born citizen is one born on the soil of the US... their parents can both be foreigners or one parent of US Citizenship.  A Naturalized Citizen is one that immigrates to the US and becomes a Citizen by completing the naturalization process.  A Natural Born Citizen though is one born of two US Parents on US Soil... born of  the blood and of the Soil.. there is no other citizen relationship possible than to be a natural citizen of the soil and blood... in this case a US Natural Born Citizen.

A Natural Born Citizen is neither a 'native born' or a 'Naturalized Citizen'... They are born of two parents who are US Citizens on US Soil.. of the blood, and of the soil.  They are naturally US Citizens, by no other choice.

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Debra Rae steinman 47 minutes ago

Your articles do not dispute the links I posted (from actual credible sources proving that Ted Cruz is in fact qualified to be Potus). 

I read your link ... and no where in the links you provided does it say you have to have TWO people who are American citizens at birth.

If that were true as you 'infer' Chester Arthur would have been impeached ... instead of merely a one term POTUS.

You are inferring a lot ... yet posting very little.

Again my links are from credible sources unlike your Birther and News with views sites.

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (December 15)

Original intent trumps any sites you may wish to go to that are just someone's opinion, usually deliberately skewed on this issue; like Cruz's liberal law professors at Harvard, who may have set him off on the wrong foot on this issue all those years ago, because of the Left's agenda of trying to make of the Constitution a 'living document,' subject to the scheming interpretations of ideologues, who have wished to break America away from its rule of law - its Constitution - for a very long time. 

The historical record is clear, unequivocally so: The constitutional Framers were going by the definition from the definitive tome of the day on such subjects, Emer de Vattel's treatise 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,' wherein the definition of a 'natural born citizen' is of one born on the soil (jus soli) of citizen parents (jus sanguinis).  The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the Framers was, as I have said before on this thread, to make sure that the occupant of that PARTICULAR office, who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - a, if not the, major factor in this whole matter - had NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.  As a naturalized citizen would be subject to.  And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.  Like Obama.  And like Cruz.  (And Rubio.)

Also of historical note is that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to those proceedings, put forward a proposal on the issue of the presidential eligibility requirements that the candidate need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN by the Convention, in favor of the more stringent NBC requirement.  And if any of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were STILL not PRECISELY sure of what they were being asked to vote on, all they would have had to do was ask their elder and respected mentor, Benjamin Franklin, sitting right there amongst them as a  delegate to those same proceedings himself; who, it is known, had three copies of de Vattel's tome - and had even made a copy of it available to the Continental Congress members.  So, the statesmen of that day KNEW VERY WELL what the term meant, and what THEY meant by putting it in their contract as a requirement for that particular office.
If the term has been subtly skewed in our day, that is of no relevance to the issue at hand: A constitutional amendment would have had to be mounted to change the eligibility requirement itself, of a person born on the soil of citizen parents - PLURAL  And as I have also pointed out previously on this thread, both of our modern-day political parties KNEW FULL WELL of this need, for having tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and 2008, to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress ON THIS VERY ISSUE, to water down the stringent NBC requirement - and failing each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue.

That both of said parties need to be hauled into court on RICO-statute proceedings, for having obviously colluded in this grave matter, is another issue.  As is having the Usurper in the office either resign voluntarily, or be removed, legally, by Oathkeepers,  Right now we're talking about Ted Cruz's situation, and the issue of two wrongs not making a right.  And we had better get this one right.  Or this nation is heading for the end of its road.

An excellent, in-depth source of info on this issue is attorney Mario Apuzzo's site: puzo1dotblogspotdotcom.  Also the two videos by Prof. Herb Titus.  And the site of CDR C.F. Kerchner (Ret.).  For anybody who is seriously interested in the truth of this matter.   

“…the end of its road.”  Which may very well be what this is all about.  The NWO schemers pulling out all the stops, in their campaign, to take over; in this case, by hopelessly compromising the U.S. government, until it falls on - seemingly - its own accord.



No comments: