Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

“In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents.”…Attorney Mario Apuzzo

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln



At the time the US Constitution was drafted and ratified there were 2 classifications of citizens, natural born citizens and everyone else.

That is why non natural born citizens, just citizens, had to be grandfathered in to run for president.

The US Constitution states:

“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 . . . .”

There was no naturalization law and no naturalized citizens by law.

Natural born citizen was understood at the time and needed no further explanation.

However, a prominent historian and founding father, David Ramsay did, in the same year the Constitution was ratified, 1789, define natural born citizen.

From Citizen News March 25, 2015.

“Yes, the Glenn Beck Radio Show is mostly comedy. Occasionally they inject facts and outrage.
Glenn Beck once again insulted legal scholars and concerned Americans with his entertainment culture low information media use of “citizen” interchangeably with “natural born citizen.”
 “One of his parents is American. That’s all it takes. For the love of heaven, if illegal aliens can come to the America and give birth, and that birth child is a citizen, then so is Ted Cruz, for the love of heaven. Stop it!” Pat said. The Immigration and Nationality Act states that a person is a citizen by birth if they are born to a parent with U.S. citizenship, ”
Perhaps the explanation for Beck and his lackeys doing so comes from commenter JayJay.
Submitted on 2015/03/25 at 3:18 am
““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 . . . .”
Sadly, Americans are so lacking in grammar, they don’t get the significance of the comma after ‘states’.”
Yesterday on WND, writer Cheryl Chumley omitted a crucial sentence of the US Constitution that states who is eligible to be president.
Words matter.
Especially in the US Constitution.
Especially when they define the eligibility for president of the US.
So the question is, why did Cheryl Chumley omit them?
From WND March 24, 2015.
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
Much of the tone of this article is atypical for a WND article.
It resembles work from the left or “1984.”
Read the full article and let me know.
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.”
“Patriot and legal scholar Mario Apuzzo has provided some of the best information on the definition of natural born citizen from  the year the Constitution was ratified.

From Mario Apuzzo:


“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789″
“In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.” David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”

In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,” Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.” In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” ”


Thanks to CDR Charles Kerchner for his ongoing assistance and dedication to this country.




13 responses to “Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

  1. citizenwells

    “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
    –if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
    history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
    Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
    controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

  2. citizenwells

    “From almost 2.5% GDP growth expectations in February, The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model has now collapsed its estimates of Q1 GDP growth to just 0.2% – plunging from +1.4% just 2 weeks ago.”

  3. oldsoldier79


    Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered in Afghanistan last spring after five years in captivity, faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, according to his lawyer.

    Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s attorney, told The Washington Post that his client was handed a charge sheet on Tuesday. Army officials announced they will provide an update in his case at 3:30 p.m. at Fort Bragg, N.C., but declined to discuss new developments ahead of the news conference.

    Bergdahl, 28, went missing from his base in Paktika province on June 30, 2009, and is believed to have grown disillusioned with the U.S. military’s mission in Afghanistan. He was held captive in Pakistan by the Haqqani network, an insurgent group allied with the Taliban, until a deal brokered through the government of Qatar was reached last year.
    I HOPE THIS BASTARD IS FOUND GUILTY AND SENT TO Ft. Leavenworth for a long long time, given a DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE, plus made to pay back all the money he received upon his return to the USA….he deserves NO consideration for his cowardly actions.

    because of him, perhaps many GI’s paid a heavy price…..some were killed and wounded immediately after he deserted in the process of looking for him.

    This is another OBAMA failure…trading ONE DESERTER for FIVE known TERRORIST……..OBAMA should be standing trial right along side of this scumbag for AIDING and ABETTING the enemy.

  4. oldsoldier79


    These were the words Susan Rice, Obama’s left hand woman used to describe Burghdahl’s serve ……now we know better, and every American knows better ….we also know ‘WHAT A DUMBASS Susan Rice is !!!

    National Security Advisor Susan Rice defended the prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on the June 1, 2014 brodcast of ABC’s “This Week” by saying Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction.”

    Regarding the desertion allegations, she said Bergdahl, “served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.”

    Rice also said that “assurances relating to the movement, the activities, the monitoring of those detainees [released in exchange for Bergdahl] give us confidence that they cannot and, in all likelihood, will not pose a significant risk to the United States. And that it is in our national interests that this transfer had been made.”
    “And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
    Rev 16:11”
    “And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.” Rev 16:10″

    Now let’s see what flimsy excuse Obama gives for this…or will he just direct Eric Holder to take Bergdahl into Federal custody then release him for insufficient evidence?

    I will bet 100 to one that Obama gets deeply involved in this before it’s over….

    Big time EGG all over many faces in the White House today.

  5. oldsoldier79


    George Zimmerman bursts from the shadows as he releases his first statement since his acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin. He recorded a video of himself answering questions that were asked by his lawyer, Howard Iken, in what looked to be the attorney’s office.

    Zimmerman, with the apparent blessing of Iken, went so far as to accuse Obama of breaking the law when he tasked the Department of Justice to pursue him:

    “For him to make incendiary comments, as he did, and direct the Department of Justice to pursue a baseless prosecution he, by far, overstretched, overreached, even broke the law in certain aspects, to where you have an innocent American being prosecuted by the federal government, which should never happen.”
    Zimmerman also pressed Obama to recognize that his life matters just as much as anyone’s.

    “He held a ceremony at the White House, inviting the Martin-Fulton Family, and stating that they should take the day to reflect upon the fact that all children’s lives matter. Unfortunately for the President, I am also my parents’ child and my life matters as well.”

    When asked of how he thought Obama should have acted in regards to his case, Zimmerman said:

    “The President should have done what he said he was going to do and not interject himself in a local law enforcement matter, or a state matter, and waited until the facts came out. Instead rushing to judgment and making racially charged comments and pitting American against American.”
    “He should have taken the high road, given his position, and been an example, been a leader as the President should be and say, ‘let’s not rush to judgment,’ as I’m sure he would want that same luxury afforded to him if he was accused of something.”
    Instead, Obama picked sides and widened the divisions between the American people.

    “To me, that was, clearly, a dereliction of duty in pitting Americans against each other solely based on race.”

    Your remarks merit legal actions…..

  6. Following up on the “natural born” issue: The only US statute EVER to define “natural born citizen” has been the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act that replaced it does not change or rescind 1790 definition of natural born citizen. It does not mention it at all. It only gives additional stipulations for the process of naturalization. Obviously, in the minds of the 1790 crowd, to whom we owe the founding of our country, who passed this statute, “natural born” included children born abroad if one or more of the parents were citizens and if the father had been a resident of the US. Natural Law did not exclude that definition in their minds. Why would they have passed that statute using those words if they did not believe that way? It makes no sense at all. This has all gotten out of hand because Obama has sent so many on wild goose chase concerning his eligibility, which is exactly what he wanted. The more people going down this path, the more they wouldn’t question his real paternity and see that he does not have the exotic African connection he pretends to. He is full blooded American on both sides, born in the USA, the State of Hawaii. And now, with his most formable outspoken opponent in the Senate announcing his bid for the Presidency, Obama has Conservatives going whacko questioning Ted Cruz’s natural born status–like you good people here at this site. What irony! Obama must be having a great laugh at ours and Ted Cruz’s expense.

  7. oldsoldier79


    Normally I find agreement with most of what you write, however, I cannot agree with your assessment of Obama’s status as being a “natural born citizen”, nor can I agree with your logic of what a “natural born citizen” is or is not..

    If Obama’s father was Barack Obama Sr., and if his father was a citizen of Africa, which he was…then it is impossible for me to concede that Barack Hussan Obama is a “natural-born citizen”. He may be a citizen, but that’s another story.

    A “natural-born” citizen is someone born of 2 American citizens, and born on American soil, not just one parent of the US and one of Africa.

    You seem to place great confidence in the Act of 1795.

    Here is my concerning the Act of 1795 as posted in Wikipedia:

    ” 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 conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen. 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.”

    Please note the only thing this Act did was;

    1) Increased the period of required residence from two to five years.

    2) Created a Declaration of Intention requirement that created a two-step NATURALIZATION process.

    3) Conferred the status of “citizen” and NOT “natural-born citizen”.

    4) The Act specified that “naturalized” citizenship was RESERVED only for ‘free white people’.

    5) Changed the wording in the Act of 1790 Act from “good character” to read “good moral character”.

    Now let’s back up and see what the Act of 1790 says:

    Wikipedia says this about the Act of 1790:

    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” — the only U.S. statute to ever use the term “natural born citizen”.[1][2].

    Here is the exact wording from the Act of 1790 in the Congressional Record:

    “CHAP, IIT.—Jin Ad to establish an uniform Rule nf Naturalization.(a) March 26,1790.
    SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
    of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien,
    being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and
    under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
    may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have
    resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking
    the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to ‘support the constitution of
    the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer;
    and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a
    citizen of the United States.

    And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling- within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

    And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:

    Provided,That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

    Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed,(«)

    APPROVED, March 26, 1790.

    My take on the Act of 1790:

    1) Any ‘free white person’ who has resided in a state for 2 years may be admitted upon application to a common court and be of good character can become a naturalized citizen.

    2) Any children of naturalized parents under 21 years of age at the time of naturalization may also be considered ‘citizens’.

    3) Children of parents (that’s both mother and father) born at sea or overseas may be considered ‘natural born’ citizens PROVIDING the father is a citizen

    4) Anyone who’s father has NEVER been a citizen can never be considered a citizen.
    ———————————————————————————————–This is the law as it was written……I make no apology for the length of this post

    it is clear from reading the law that Mr. Obama could NEVER be a “natural-born” citizen as proscribed by our Constitution regardless of where he was born.

    it is also clear that Mr. Cruz also does not meet the standard set in our Constitution because his Cuban father was NOT a citizen of the US and held only a ‘green card’ to the USA at the time of his Canadian birth. a green card is not citizenship status.

    So, in reality, it doesn’t matter if “both of these birds” were born in the Lincoln bedroom on the White House grounds…neither was, or is qualified to be president…..

    I see nothing else to argue or debate on this subject.

  8. Keeping it simple enough even Glenn Beck & Pat Gray can understand.

    From Mario Appuzo’s article…”Senator Ted Cruz was not born in the country of which both his parents where citizens at the time of his birth. He was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father. He cannot be a natural born citizen of the United States because he was not born in the United States (emphasis mine) and also because he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father.

    Well, DUH! That’s about as simple as it can be stated.

  9. Dean_M,
    ” He is full blooded American on both sides, born in the USA, the State of Hawaii. ”

    I have seen nothing, no proof at all, that even identifies who Obama is, or where he came from, what citizenship he holds, or who his parents are. Not one document!

    The usurper is operating with a stolen Social Security number, a forged Selective Service card, and a forged birth certificate, so who is going to argue Obama is a natural born Citizen?

    Give us a break!

  10. GALLUP: Americans Worry Least About ‘Global Warming’…

  11. Pingback: Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ??? | Citizen WElls

  12. Pingback: Citizen News » Natural born citizen eligibility approval helps Obama not Ted Cruz, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???, Media orwellian misinformaton

  13. Pingback: TheBlaze Ted Cruz not eligible, Glenn Beck insists Cruz is eligble for POTUS, Must be born in US to be president, Citizen not equivalent to natural born citizen | Citizen WElls

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s