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 ???

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 ???

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today….The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”…Amazon description of Cheryl Chumley book “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality”

“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

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…..In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”



Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

We do not know where Obama was born.

There is zero proof that Obama was born in the US.

Cruz and Obama had 1 US citizen parent. That creates a problem with the natural born citizen requirement of the US Constitution.

Many of the Obama eligibilty challenges beginning in 2008 were based on a lack of a authentic birth certificate proving birth in the US. The image presented on WhiteHouse.gov, even if it came from Hawaii does not prove US birth.

Some of the eligibility challenges were based on the requirement of 2 US citizen parents and birth on US soil.

CDR Charles F. Kerchner filed a lawsuit against Obama on January 21, 2009.

“47. Hence, at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, Obama was born to a U.S.
citizen mother but not a U.S. citizen father.
48. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore
cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Endnote 9.”

“9. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. This specifically speaks about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance
and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country.
Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign
influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington
agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings.
Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others.
The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.”

H. Brooke Paige challenged Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen in the Vermont Supreme Court.

“Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.”


There are 2 important concepts from the above cases.

1. It was clearly understood at the time the Constitution was written that in this country natural born citizen meant a child born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

2. That the requirement of natural born citizen has not been changed by an amendment. You are being bombarded by misinformation about this law and that law affecting the natural born citizen requirement but nothing has changed it since the Constitution was ratified. This was noted in Hassan v FEC;

 “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

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.”


You are being led to believe that “legal experts” are in agreement on the definition of natural born citizen (refer to numerous orwellian references at Citizen Wells)

That is simply not so!

John McCain had 2 US citizen parents.


From the Michigan Law Review August 13, 2008.

Gabriel J. Chin, U of California, Davis, School of Law.

“Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.”

“II. Natural Born Citizenship as a Child of Citizens”

“According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the
Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth
and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only
become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised
either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the
enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or
by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person
granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is
naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized
citizen. This last point is discussed thoroughly in Jill A. Pryor’s 1988 note in
the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential
Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.”

“Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President.”


Media reports.

Here are 2 of the more honest reports:

From Time June 23, 2011.

“It’s equally strange to me that a nation that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)”


Honest but stupid: “but those reasons have long since vanished.”


From PolitiFact May 9, 2013.

“Is Ted Cruz eligible under the Constitution to become president?”

“When discussing McCain, the CRS report draws on immigration law and says: “The uncertainty concerning the meaning of the natural-born qualification in the Constitution has provoked discussion from time to time, particularly when the possible presidential candidacy of citizens born abroad was under consideration. There has never been any authoritative adjudication.”

“So legally, the question is unsettled. Perhaps it will be if Cruz ever becomes a presidential contender.”


Something happened from 2013 to 2015.

Now Ted Cruz can be legally challenged on his natural born citizen status.

On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:

“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”

“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.”

Read more:


On March 24, 2015, Cheryl Chumley, writing for WND, wrote the following:

“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?
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.
 We are being bombarded with article after article stating that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.








media reports 2013 v now

15 responses to “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 ???

  1. citizenwells

    “Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”


  2. citizenwells

    “U.S. stocks: Futures rebound as bulls run with Yellen; Chinese hints easing”


    “Forget about a strong start for the U.S. economy in 2015: Consumer spending barely rose in February after a decline in January, pointing to much slower growth in the first quarter.”


    Line up for DRUG TESTING.

  3. citizenwells

    Just heard one of Glenn Beck’s lackeys:

    “These folks are piece by piece taking apart the US Constitution>”

    Speaking of drug testing.

  4. citizenwells

    “Cruz, Obama, and the Eligibility Clause”

    “To get it right, we must ask what the understanding of an Article II natural born citizen was at the time of its ratification. To have been born a U.S. citizen at the time of our Constitution’s ratification meant that one was born with sole allegiance to the United States. So by necessity, an Article II natural born citizen is one born with natural, undivided allegiance to the United States. That is reasonably the heart of the natural born clause.

    Though the previous definition is intellectually honest and an accurate statement, we must acknowledge that, like many constitutional provisions, the natural born citizen clause has been eviscerated with bad precedent – in this case, to accommodate Mr. Obama.

    Short of a constitutional amendment, the original purpose of the clause is gone forever. It’s not right, but something so monumental is not going to revolve without some degree of revolution. The requirement of undivided natural allegiance at birth for future candidates would undermine the Obama presidency, and not enough government workers in black robes would ever let that happen.

    Alas, from this point forward, the clause effectively means that anyone born a U.S. citizen can become president, regardless of prior foreign allegiance.

    I suppose some comfort may be taken in the fact that the unimaginable, worst-case scenario has already happened. What the founders sought to safeguard against has come to pass: a U.S. president with a foreign, anti-traditional American mindset has inflicted immeasurable havoc upon our system and way of life. At least the odds of it happening again, especially consecutively, are slim.

    Monte Kuligowski is a Virginia attorney.”


  5. citizenwells

    Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at his birth.

    That means Cruz lied when he stated:

    “Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,”


    I should have reported this earlier.

  6. CW,,,,,,,
    …………but thanks to our OVEREDUCATED WORDBENDERS among us the meaning of the words of the Constitution becomes what they WANT IT TO MEAN…….not what it expressly states. Those “SOOOOOOO IMPORRRRTANT” people think that because they are SOOOOOO EDUCATTTTED that all others should lick their stinking feet………BUT only intellectually,and morally weak people follow such FREAKS. Education by itself is absolutely essential,but when it is taken to EXTREMES it becomes a TOOL of the practitioners with which to LORD it over all others. Nor does extensive,or overeducation by itself make a person some sort of KING. But without the integrity of principle, moral, and spiritual strength, he/she are little more than SENSELESS MORONS.

  7. CW……
    ………so it sounds as though Cruz really has’nt the slightest idea regarding his legal status. YEAH SURE!…..Perhaps he like Soetoro MIGHT NOT BE A CITIZEN of ANY legal “STANDING”, maybe not even naturalised,…….in which case he isn’t even legally a Congressman……sounds to me that he might have ASSUMED a little TOO MUCH,and his constituents might have done the SAME. Of course by using the word “assumed”, the intellectually diminished folks among us might just believe that it was all just an innocent oversight. har har Perhaps it is time for us to start using our GOD GIVEN GOURDS,for something other than a HAT RACK.

  8. citizenwells

    to be honest, they had me going for awhile.
    Then I came to my senses (like Winston in “1984”) and realized he was not a citizen at birth.
    The Orwellian brainwashing does work.

  9. ……….but thanks to the PRESENT USURPER, and his GOONS I have a very strong suspicion regarding the US Citizenship of Mr.Cruz,as well. Until he “PROVES PUBLICALLY” that he was BORN TO TWO US CITIZENS,ON US SOIL,I will be forced to disregard anything he has to say…….no matter how impassioned it might be!
    Mr Cruz the BALL IS NOW IN YOUR COURT,and simply returning it will DO NOTHING……..tell us the TRUTH Mr, Cruz……Until I learn the truth I shall henceforth refer to you as “FIDEL”.

  10. CW……
    ………….my rationale is “Since when is Calgary a US city?”

  11. ……….in addition PUBLIC INFORMATION is treated exactly the same in Canada as it is in the US. That said there should be a PUBLIC RECORD OF HIS BIRTH…….. The PI DATABASES, and the Calgary Birth Records repository would be good places to start.
    If he was born to a SINGULAR US Citizen,he is NOT A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. This is almost a carbon copy of Soetoro. BUT BEWARE …..the OVEREDUCATED WORDTWISTERS are going to SCREAM LOUDLY that HE IS ELIGIBLE…….because if they reject Cruz they will take a real hit on their chin because they will also have to find against Soetoro. That is primarily why I believe that Cruz will be found ELIGIBLE. Nobody in the stinking rat’s den wants to commit political suicide by telling the truth. They are ALL, including the DOJ,in it OVER THEIR HEADS,and this could cause them all to DROWN if they find against Cruz……. if they find against Cruz the courts will have at the same instant acknowledged NBC. Draw your own conclusions.

  12. ……..further, I would invite anybody who lives close to the Canadian border, to take a drive up to Calgary and visit the Calgary BOH, and look for a BC. You might get lucky. I am not sure though if Calgary is the capitol of the particular province. But if he lived in Calgary there will be public record of his presence,or birth there.

  13. citizenwells


    *** New post ***

  14. Sorry, Ted’s not eligible.

    The thirteen original states all adopted English Common Law for the decision of legal questions. Under ECL, only persons born in the realm were natural born subjects. Parliament, by statute, extended NBS status to certain offspring born across seas, in order to allow for the descent of hereditary titles and properties. But the 13 States did not adopt ESL, only ECL. So the meaning of “natural born” inherited in the country by that adoption was limited to persons born on the soil.

    By the way, in a bold strike against those who object to so called “anchor babies,” under ECL and under the law of this country resulting from the adoption of ECL, it DOES NOT MATTER what the citizenship of a child’s parents is, when a child is born here, they are a natural born citizen. The only exception would be children born here while their parents are serving in a diplomatic function for another country.

    Here are links to my blog posts explaining why Ted cannot qualify:


    As I’ve staked out this position, I have been treated like a heretic by birthers whose thinking is based on application of legal principles found in Emmerich Vattel’s The Law of Nations. Vattel describes citizenship and sets out principles of citizenship that require one to be born on the soil of the nation and to be the child of citizens to be a natural born citizen. Their dependence on Vattel is misguided:


  15. Just as President Roosevelt was questioned of not entering WWII earlier because of potential ties: grandparents, relatives in Germany, the same questions apply today in the event of questionable “births” of Presidents whose parents were not both U.S. cItizens at the time of their birth, …which applies equally to Anchor babies today. If the ideal is no potential conflict of interest in foreign relations, and appointments, conceivably that is made stronger by no foreign ties. 2016 election seems to be avoiding this implication when there are legitimate questions concerning Bush’s wife, Gov. Jindal, Senator Ted Cruz, and Senator Marco Rubio. wHy all together, and why now? Is America ready to declare itself boundary less, so that citizenship is no longer deemed meaningful, or significant?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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