1) more from patriotsforamerica.ning: ‘Ted Cruz Is NOT a Legal U.S. Citizen at all - by JB Williams’ - posted by Harry Riley - February 7
..
Permalink Reply by Raffaele Cafagna 4 hours ago (February 8)
I am tired of wasting time saying : I am not a Judge , nor a Lawyer nor a Professor of Law ; therefore I can`t and will not Judge ; what I said it is My Opinion . Cruz is very knowledgeable of the Constitution ; he knows the Constitution by Heart and Recited IT for 19 Hours ; Senator Cornyn of Texas was there and Never moved A Finger nor offered Cruz a Simple Glass of Water . Now You know .
Cruz Needs to come forward , ASAP , and Clarify his Status . For Cruz to say : I was born from an American mother , That is not the answer that will Qualify him for POTUS .
▶Reply
Permalink Reply by RONALD C VROOMAN 3 hours ago (February 8)
Ron, there has been NO Supreme Court decision on this matter. What there have been are 3 presidents and five candidates, over a period of 150 years who have not met your definition of Natural Born. I provided you with the Canadian Law you claim disallows dual citizenship. You didn't even read it. I provided you with the US Law that makes Cruz a natural born citizen and you did not read it. I provided you with the names of the above mentioned presidents and candidates who did or do not meet your criteria and you ignored it. Publius Huldah is a questionable source. Don't you think that sometime in 150 years, one of those people I mentioned would have been found "not natural born?" British Law at the time of the Revolution provided that persons born to British subjects anywhere in the world were themselves British from birth. British Law formed the basis of US law much more than the writings of Emmerich de Vattel. So did the works of John Locke.
By your definition, no Native American Indian ever born would ever be a Natural born, or even a citizen, because they were made citizens by an Act of Congress in 1924, rather than a Constitutional Amendment. James Buchanan could never have been president because he was elected prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, and Chester Arthur in the 1880s would have violated the 12th Amendment because he was not only president, he was also Vice-President, born to an Irish father, probably in Canada. His birthplace of VA that he claimed has been completely debunked, and the other one in Vermont was only a couple of miles from Canada at a time when the border was ill-defined, and he may well have been born in Canada, because his Irish citizen father was employed in Canada part of the time and maintained a residence there where he and Arthur's mother resided sometimes. John McCain was born in Panama before the Zone was considered a US territory. He, along with every other US citizen born there between 1915 and 1935, were grandfathered in as being born on US soil. George Romney, presidential candidate in the sixties, and Mitt's daddy, was born in Mexico and his status was NEVER ONCE seriously questioned. Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, he would still be eligible. As much as I hate that bastard, he is considered natural born. Congress was given power to determine laws of naturalization in Article I Section 8. At the time, the meaning of naturalization meant they could decide the requirements for citizenship. Meanings of words change over the years. The "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment relates to proper functioning more so than Federal Control. I doubt if a denizen of 1890's America would appreciate being referred to as living in the Homosexual Nineties, yet that would be the assumed meaning of "Gay Nineties" today. Congress has held the power to determine what constitutes natural born since 1789. They have done so numerous times starting in 1790. The re-statment of the law that was in effect at the time of Cruz's birth stated that he was a US citizen at birth because he was born to one US citizen parent. There are 2 types of citizens: There is natural born and naturalized. If you are born to a US citizen parent you are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US and are natural born. You can argue this point all day long while using questionable sources who have cherry picked legal opinions, but the law is what it is. One reason the Supreme Court has been so reluctant to tackle these natural born cases is because Constitutionally most of them are not in it's purview.
"I am commonly opposed to those who modestly assume the rank of champions of liberty, and make a very patriotic noise about the people. It is the stale artifice which has duped the world a thousand times, and yet, though detected, it is still successful."
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (February 8)
Ronald, You are proving to be a master of sophistry. Quote: "Meanings of words change over the years." What arrogant gall, to try to put that sort of specious argument, that magic trick, that shyster-lawyer bit of legerdemain, over on an intelligent audience such as the one that comes to this site. Yes, meanings change. And, the ORIGINAL INTENT of the term is still the same. The eligibility requirement ITSELF is still the same: a 'natural born' citizen being one born on the soil of its citizen parents. (That's what makes it 'natural,' for heaven's sake.) To change the requirement ITSELF would require a constitutional amendment. And, in point of fact, both main political parties of our day recognized that truism, and tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and 2008, to get such an amendment (proposals including this specific common-denominator issue) started through Congress - and failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue. So, what did they do? They both decided to ignore the Constitution, and, with their control between them of the MSM and the judicial branch, figure that they could pull a fast one on the easy-mark American people. Well, I've got news for you and them: Your best-laid schemes won't work this time, boyos.
You talked about the Naturalization Act of 1790. Funny how you forgot to mention that that Act was repealed by the one of 1795, which changed but one thing in it: It took OUT the reference to a nbc, because it had been seized on and interpreted erroneously, so the likes of Madison and Washington corrected that error in semantics. (See puzo1dotblogspotdotcom for the details on this specific matter, and the whole thing.) You also failed to note that the de Vattel treatise was well-known by the constitutional Framers - it was even taught in the universities of the day - and as well, Benjamin Franklin, the Framers's learned and respected elder mentor, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those same proceedings, is known to have had 3 copies of that treatise, and any of the delegates could have asked him what they were being asked to vote on if there were any question in any of their minds as to the definition of that term AT THAT TIME. They were CLEARLY going by American common law, aka Natural Law - based on de Vattel - not British common law, which talks about natural born SUBJECTS. Which those men were clearly NOT any longer. They were freemen, and damn proud of it, having fought a long-drawn out war to obtain the right to be such.
You say that there are only 2 types of citizens. NOT SO. And to emphasize the whole point of this 'debate,' and why you are wrong: Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate himself to those self-same proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was rejected, in favor of the more stringent 'natural born' category of citizen, i.e., one born on the soil (jus soli) of citizen parents thereof (jus sanguinis). The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the Framers being to make sure that the occupant of that PARTICULAR office - and that particular federal office ONLY, be it duly and clearly noted; who also then became the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces (as John Jay pointed out to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of those proceedings; a particular concern of those people) - had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the United States.
You express concern about the future of the Republic. Your way of dealing with your concern would end it, by a) trying to make two wrongs make a right, and b) trashing the Constitution as a contract, and turning it into a wet noodle, a plaything of devious minds; turning us away from the rule of law and embedding us in the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny. As we have seen, and in spades, under the Usurper. Which error needs to be rectified (NOT enlarged upon). And quickly, before he does any more damage to the Republic than he already has - for not being a 'natural born' citizen, and thus having divided loyalties.
Choose wisely, Citizen.
--
--
2) from wnd.com: ’Trump To Savage: Maybe Obama Doesn’t Want To Defet ISIS’ - February 8
(‘Donald analyzes GOP race on eve of New Hampshire’)
..
(Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by WND.)
You want an alpha-male leader, Michael? I'll give you an alpha-male leader: One who comes right out and says that not only are Cruz snd Rubio ineligible for the office - for neither of them being a 'natural born citizen' as the term was understood by the constitutional Framers (with considerable historical proof thereof) and is required by the Constitution TO THIS DAY - but so is, and has been, the Usurper in the office as we speak, who thus needs simply to be removed from that purloined office by Oath Keepers (no impeachment process necessary for someone who is not a legally sitting president) and held for trial, on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason; and that therefore all the legislation that he has signed into law, and all the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he has issued, and all the appointments that he has made - including to the U.S. Supreme Court - go with him, into the trash bin, for all being tainted by the Usurper's illegality. And that goes for all the SCOTUS decisions that were decided with the help of the illegally-appointed justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. And we get back to a semblance of the rule of law in this country - to say, under the Constitution. Not under the rule of men. A/k/a arbitrary law. A/k/a tyranny.
And we need to do this before the Usurper, and his New World Order masters, orchestrate a 'national emergency,' giving the Usurper the excuse he needs to declare martial law. At which point, there will be no more federal constitutional Republic of the U.S.A. to talk about ANYWAY. So, s**t or git, politicians - the lot of you sorry bunch.
--
3) from nobarack08.wordpress.com:
--
3) from nobarack08.wordpress.com:
Posted on January 9, 2016 by nobarack08
In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (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.”
That senate race was highly unusual. Redistricting had caused setbacks delaying the elections and election results. Cruz was running to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who had just retired and vacated her seat. At the originally scheduled time for the primary, Republican Cruz opponent Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst was well ahead in the polls. But by the time the election took place, Cruz had had enough time to slip ahead with more name recognition, in the end defeating his opponent and going on to defeat Democrat Paul Sadler in the general election, becoming only one of three Latino’s in the U.S. Senate.
Rafael (Ted) Cruz was not born in the United States to US Citizen parents. Rafael (Ted) Cruz is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and is ineligible to seek the Ofice [sic] of the President of the United States.
kibitzer3, on February 9, 2016 at 7:30 am (act. February 8 @11.34 PM PST) said: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
Thank you for this post. Excellent information.
There are some true Americans yet. I am talking about you. Not Ted Cruz.
—
And as for other non-true Americans; this:
4) from The Common Sense Show: ‘Obama Prepares for Civil War As He Continues Destroying the Military’s Leadership’ - January 6 - by a poster named ‘hey’ (6 February):
The following prophetic observation and narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised “Meet The Press’.From Sunday’s 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised “Meet the Press”.
THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.General Bill Gann’ USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171…During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, “Stand and Face It”.Senator Obama replied :“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides.” “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression…” “The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.”
Obama continued: “The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing’. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails – – – perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ……”
When I Become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations ofIslam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past”.
“Of course now, I have found myself about to become The President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside . I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country’s First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.
--
[I don’t know how much of this is direct quotation from the Usurper, or the musings of the poster. Just offered fwiw.]
No comments:
Post a Comment