Category Archives: US Constitution

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Two state ballot entities recently ruled on Ted Cruz remaining on their ballots.

The Illinois state board of elections ruled that Ted Cruz is eligible as a natural born citizen.  IL is consistently listed as one of the most corrupt states in the US and the home of Obama, another non natural born citizen.

No surprise.

The New Hampshire ballot commission took a more honest approach.

“If there is a clear ruling on some issues that somebody clearly doesn’t meet, we would apply it. If there is a constitutional uncertainty about the meaning of something – which from my research and from all the stuff that was thrown at us at the commission there certainly is about the natural born citizen thing — we don’t undertake to make that decision,”

I was disappointed to find what I consider to be the most inaccurate article I have uncovered at American Thinker, February 5, 2016.

“Illinois and New Hampshire Agree Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen”

“Trump persists that Cruz’s citizenship is still an open question. It is not, and the election boards of two states, New Hampshire and Illinois, have now ruled, in response to complaints, that Sen. Ted Cruz is indeed, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, a “natural born citizen” fully eligible to be President of the United States. As the Washington Examiner reported:”

“A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.””

“Indeed, it is unnecessary. The question of Cruz’s citizenship has been asked and answered. Is Trump saying that a baby born in Paris to a vacationing American family is not eligible to run for president and must be “naturalized” like some illegal alien from Guadalajara?

Some noted legal scholars would beg to differ from Trump’s concern that Cruz is not in fact a “natural born” citizen.

Jonathan Adler, who teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at Case Western University School of Law, writes in the Washington Post:

Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.”

“Also agreeing with Cruz’s eligibility are two constitutional scholars who have argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Washington Post reported:

Writing in the Harvard Law Review, two former top Supreme Court litigators, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, said: “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.”

“Now two state boards of election have certified Cruz’s eligibility, which is beyond dispute, no matter how much Trump whines, pouts, and throws out groundless accusations.”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/illinois_and_new_hampshire_agree_cruz_is_a_natural_born_citizen.html

Aside from being wrong on the definition of natural born citizen, this article is blatantly inaccurate:

New Hampshire did not rule that Cruz is a natural born citizen.

It omitted the opinion of constitutional expert Laurence Tribe of Harvard:

“Cruz says this is all settled law, but Harvard’s Laurence Tribe disagrees.

“It clearly is not settled law,” Tribe said in recent an interview.”

“That’s because Tribe says Cruz is a constitutional “originalist,” who believes the document should be followed to the letter. Tribe says jurists who share such a view might well conclude that Cruz is not eligible to be president — because he was not born in America.

According to Tribe, this shows that Cruz is trying to have it both ways.”

http://www.wbur.org/2016/01/15/donald-trump-ted-cruz-laurence-tribe-citizenship

From The Dallas Morning News November 24, 2015.

“The New Hampshire ballot commission today rejected efforts to kick Canada-born Sen. Ted Cruz off the primary ballot based on his birth outside the United States.

That clears a key legal and political obstacle as the Texas Republican seeks the GOP nomination for president. But it’s not a clear win on the question of eligibility.

Rather, the panel found that with the law of eligibility so murky, it can’t second-guess the senator’s own claims that he passes constitutional muster. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other authority has explicitly ruled that someone like Cruz — born on foreign soil, with one American parent – can or cannot be president.

“It would be really nice if somebody would get this issue of law decided who has authority to decide constitutional issues, so every four years we don’t have this come up again,” said Manchester attorney Brad Cook, a Republican who chairs the 5-member New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission.”

Read more:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/regardless-of-canadian-birth-ted-cruz-survives-ballot-challenge-in-new-hampshire.html/

AMERICAN THINKER OWES THE PUBLIC AN APOLOGY.

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Obama and Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School.

That speaks volumes.

Ted Cruz should have gotten a ruling on his eligibiilty to be president as a natural born citizen many months ago.

Ted Cruz is an arrogant fool for not doing so.

From the Daily Mail January 29, 2016.

“Trump campaign manager to Ted Cruz: We’ll debate you one-on-one as soon as a judge says you’re eligible to be president!”

“Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Friday said his campaign will debate his closest rival for the party’s nomination head-to-head – but only if a federal judge says so.

Trump, the New York real estate tycoon who boycotted Thursday night’s presidential debate because of a long-running personal feud with one of the network’s reporters, signaled Friday that he would be happy to debate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

DailyMail.com asked Trump if he was serious about resisting Cruz until a court decides on his presidential electability.

‘Well, I think you’ve got a real problem. I think Cruz has a real problem… I would do that. I would absolutely do that. But they’ve got to rule. He’s got to go for a declaratory judgment,’ Trump said aboard his private jet on the tarmac in Des Moines, Iowa.”

“Trump went on to joke that he would debate Cruz in Canada – ‘to give him home-field advantage,’ before pledging to attend next Saturday’s Republican debate in Manchester, N.H.

But already Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, had dismissed Cruz’s proposal as nothing more than a ‘publicity stunt.’

‘What we’ve said to Ted Cruz: Go into court, seek a declaratory judgment to find out if you’re even legally eligible to run for president of the United States,’ he said Thursday in a Boston radio interview.

‘That’s the first thing. Once you’ve gotten that ruling from the federal judge and you’re the last man standing in this presidential contest next to Donald Trump, we’ll be happy to have a debate with you one-on-one, anywhere you want, because that’s the way the system works,’ Lewandowski said.

‘But, as it stands right now, we don’t even know if Ted Cruz is legally eligible to run for president of the United States.'”

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422990/Trump-campaign-manager-Ted-Cruz-ll-debate-one-one-soon-judge-says-eligible-president.html

 

Ted Cruz FEC advisory opinion on natural born citizen status patriotic duty, Cruz born in Canada to 1 US citizen parent, Senate resolution 511 sanctioned John McCain who was born to 2 US citizen parents

Ted Cruz FEC advisory opinion on natural born citizen status patriotic duty, Cruz born in Canada to 1 US citizen parent, Senate resolution 511 sanctioned John McCain who was born to 2 US citizen parents

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Donald Trump was quoted in the Washington Post on January 5, 2016.

“Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a “very precarious” issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.””

Trump is correct.

This is a no brainer.

For the good of the country, the Republican Party and for Cruz himself, he should immediately request an advisory opinion from the FEC as to whether or not he is eligible for federal matching funds as a natural born citizen.

There is a precedent for doing so.

From Citizen Wells January 27, 2015.

“To be president of the US one must be a natural born citizen, not just a citizen and not a naturalized citizen.

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Based on my understanding the answer is no.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada and had only one US citizen parent.

Is Ted Cruz a patriot?

I believe so.

For the good of the country I am requesting that Ted Cruz, at the earliest possible moment, request an advisory opinion from the FEC about his eligibility for Federal Matching funds and therefore the presidency.

The FEC will be compelled to provide an advisory opinion about whether or not he is a natural born citizen.

This will be important for two reasons.

Ted Cruz needs to know early if his efforts are worthwhile and not counterproductive.

We need a ruling on this. Every government entity that should provide guidance on the definition of natural born citizen has passed the buck, including the US Supreme Court. The courts and congress have shirked their constitutional duty.

There are 2 important instances of an advisory opinion from the FEC on matching funds.

1. Attorney Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie on behalf of Barack Obama in 2007.

From Citizen Wells January 23, 2012.

“WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, on February 1, 2007 requested an advisory opinion to keep Obama’s option for matching funds open. Bauer knew full well that Obama, not being a natural born citizen, was not eligible for matching funds. The FEC advisory opinion from March 1, 2007 responded in the affirmative.Ellen L. Weintraub, former staff member at Perkins Coie, was a Democrat appointee of the FEC at that time. She remained well beyond her scheduled tenure with the help of Barack Obama.
Obama, Robert Bauer, Democrats interaction with FEC timeline.
February 1,2007

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“cc: Chairman Robert Lenhard
Vice Chair David Mason
Commissioner Michael Toner
Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky
Commissioner Steven Walther
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Note, in the above advisory opinion request, Robert Bauer was a Perkins Coie attorney and Ellen Weintraub was a former Perkins Coie staff member.
March 1, 2007

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

“The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.””

June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

“In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-4-obama-attorneys-democrats-control-fec/

2. Abdul Hassan, a naturalized citizen, requested an advisory opinion in 2012.

From Citizen Wells March 11, 2013.

“From the FEC March 11, 2013.

APPEALS COURT ISSUES PER CURIAM ORDER IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today issued its Per Curiam Order inHassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Order may be found here: (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_ac_order2.pdf).

Background.

From Citizen Wells October 1, 2012.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf) and the text of the Order may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf).

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121001_Hassan_v._FEC.shtml

Exerpts:
“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of
Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

“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.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/abdul-karim-hassan-vs-federal-election-commission-march-11-2013-u-s-court-of-appeals-per-curiam-order-hassan-not-natural-born-citizen/

This is important.

I urge you to contact Ted Cruz with this important information.

https://citizenwells.com/2015/01/27/ted-cruz-eligible-for-presidency-ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen-cruz-a-patriot-ted-cruz-advisory-opinion-from-fec-natural-born-citizen-not-citizen-naturalized-citizen-abdul-hassan-not-eligibl/

Vermont eligibility challenge update January 5, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General’s office failed to inform Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court

Vermont eligibility challenge update January 5, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General’s office failed to inform Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“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 are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Well this was an unexpected turn of events.  As a result of their
negligence in Answering or otherwise entering an appearance in Superior
Court, a series of events are unfolding that could result in profound
changes in the Vermont Primary this March.  What those changes will be is
difficult to predict. There are structural and legal problems with Vermont
Election Laws (Title 17) which has been thrown together “piecemeal” over
the years and this case should focus attention on the shortcomings of the
current law.

Mr. Paige visited the Secretary of State’s Office today to hand deliver a
copy of the latest filings that requested a Temporary Restraining Order to
prevent the “publication and distribution” of the Presidential Primary
Ballots until the “troubles” complained in the Plaintiff’s pleadings are
resolved or an accommodation can be found that would avoid injuring or
disenfranchising the various candidates.

Sadly, the Attorney General’s office has failed to inform the Secretary of
State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court. The
Director of Elections appeared “shell shocked” as Mr. Paige filled him in
on the case, the default and the resolution he intends to propose to the
Court relating to the Primary.  The General Election and the “natural-born
Citizen” question will require additional consideration in order to find
an equable resolution which hopefully will include defining “nbC”
precisely as part of the ruling (rather than mere dicta unrelated to the
resolution).

Mr. Paige informs that the gross negligence of the Defendants exhibited by
their failure to respond reduces the A/G opportunities to stall and
“sidetrack” the case.  The expedited resolution of the questions relating
to the Primary could produce an interesting civics lesson for Vermont
voters.

CitizenWells  will continue to follow this case and provide all the
details here as they become available !”

The complaint:

https://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“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

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

At the time of the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, there were only 2 types of citizens defined by US Law.

Natural born citizens and everyone else, citizens. There were no legally naturalized citizens and no provision in US Law to be naturalized until 1790.

That is why the founding fathers has to be grandfathered in with the following language:

“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 . . . .”

That language and the meaning of natural born citizen have not been altered.

Only the definition of citizen and how to attain citizenship has been altered.

It is believed by myself and many legal scholars that the founding fathers knew that one had to be born on US Soil to US citizen parents (plural).

Three years later in the Naturalization act of 1790 we find a clarification:

“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”

Obviously from that language one had to have US citizen parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen.

Senate Resolution 511, that Barack Obama signed, stated:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Once again citizens (plural).

So from start to finish we have the requirement of 2 US Citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz had only one US Citizen parent, his mother and he was born in Canada.

Clearly not eligible.

That is why the following article from the Harvard Review is so absurd.

“We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”

This is a big lie!

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

From Citizen Wells March 16, 2015.

Truths, half truths and lies.

I will make this simple because it is.

Although our laws were derived from British laws and in fact some common laws are in force today, we have heavily modified them beginning with pre revolution colonial laws and the US Constitution.

The article above conveniently, selectively quotes the US Constitution which 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 . . . .”

Ted Cruz is a citizen, but since he was not alive at the adoption of the Constitution, he is not by default a natural born citizen.

The Constitution was crafted by individuals with an excellent understanding of the law and a concern for foreign influences.

They made a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz citizen not natural born citizen, Cruz not alive at adoption of constitution, Harvard Law Review article, Still teach to constitution?, Citizen at birth not equivalent to natural born citizen

Attorney Mario Apuzzo provides a scholarly explanation.

“I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ .  The first sentence of the article says:  “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”  The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.  Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  I have written a recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html .  Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen.  They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen.  But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.

The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.  They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.  They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified.  They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com .
Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html#8Lt4afwlA9IQXYvW.99

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html

 

 

 

US Constitution subordinated to outdated historical document and irrelevance, Constitution negated by highest levels of government media and apathy, Vast majority of people just don’t give a damn

US Constitution subordinated to outdated historical document and irrelevance, Constitution negated by highest levels of government media and apathy, Vast majority of people just don’t give a damn

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”…Benjamin Franklin

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patroits to prevent its ruin”…Samuel Adams, 1776

“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 end of the day, all we have to protect us from tyranny is the US Constitution and our resolve.

How many of us realize that?

From the First Rebuttal May 4, 2015.

“I find it shocking how often I have people tell me the Constitution is out of date and is no longer relevant or necessary. Then there are the vast majority of people that think about the Constitution the same way they think about religion; it makes us feel good to believe in it and we’ll even worship it on a holiday or two The reality is that those who seem to get very worked up to the point that they are willing to act in defense of the Constitution even against the highest levels of government make up a very small minority of Americans. This is a real problem.

You see if people gave a damn the government couldn’t get away with negating the Constitution. But the vast majority of people just don’t give a damn and so the government very easily provides ridiculous and false legal sounding arguments to explain away why they have become a higher law than the Constitution. Now I’ve tried to understand why it is that we Americans are so damn apathetic about everything the government and government officials do.

Let me give a couple examples for which our apathy just boggles my mind. We know they took us into wars on false pretenses resulting in the wrongful deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and yet we’ve prosecuted no one. Hell they’ve admitted to hacking into millions of our home webcams and downloading videos and pictures of us in our most private moments and maintaining those downloads on government servers and then sharing these files with foreign governments.

But because today’s American is simply a shell of a citizen none of the criminal atrocities creates even a stir from us. Sure we all read about these atrocities and we are angered in the moment but it passes rather quickly and we fall back into our self induced ignorant bliss. Only two things can get Americans to formidably rise up. The first is a very direct and immediate impediment to our comfort. For example try cutting back on the monthly social welfare checks. You’ll have riots. The second way is if the mainstream media relentlessly instructs us to be upset about a particular issue. Outside of that there is absolutely nothing the new American won’t move past like water off a duck’s back.

What we’re finding out is that, and it sounds slightly over-dramatic but isn’t at all, unless we are wiling to fight and die to win back the freedom our forefather’s fought and died to secure for us and all future generations we will continue to feel our chains grow heavier and shorter. The simple reason is because our government is very much willing to kill to keep its ever encroaching control. A free population is the antithesis to a political class. And make no mistake the American federal government is the largest and most powerful group of aristocrats the world has known.

This group of traitors (and I mean that in the very technical sense of the word) not only behave according to a separate set of laws they have actually gone so far as to legislate a separate set of laws. This in itself is a direct breach of the very Constitution they swear to defend. Their intent is clear and that my friends is treason. They are directly negating the very basis of the American concept for their own personal self interest and they are doing so by defrauding American citizens into believing their intent is to represent the will of their constituents. Treason, Treason, Treason! What else would you call it?

Now are you ready to fight and die to win the freedoms back for your children and grandchildren? Hell No! No, not at all! And that’s kinda the problem because again the government is willing to kill to ensure your kids and grandkids don’t have the freedoms Americans were guaranteed. The fuck of it is Americans have become so damn brainwashed that despite the founding fathers telling us explicitly our government would end up enslaving the rest of us to solidify their own power and wealth we ignore it. These were the guys that figured out the British were effectively enslaving us and decided to rise against it and create the greatest damn nation the world has ever known. They literally created fucking America!!! I mean holy shit, imagine having that on your CV. And we pay them no mind, like they’re bat shit crazy and not relevant in our intellectual new world.

Today’s legislators rarely discuss the founding fathers or the Constitution beyond the very thin idea that they know we expect them to defend it. That is, like freedom and apple pie, they love it during the campaign cycle. However, ask them why then they continue to legislate against the Constitution and well they don’t want to talk about the Constitution anymore. And we the people ,like apathetic morons, buy into the bullshit they feed us because we simply don’t care. It’s to the point they can pretty much do anything knowing they can bullshit us with any damn nonsense that pops into their swollen heads. And so they do things like hack into our webcams, take nude pictures of us and send them to foreign governments and tell us it’s for our own good. We don’t give a shit because 1. it doesn’t impede our immediate comfort and 2. the press isn’t telling us it’s something to be concerned about.

The danger of being apathetic until it impacts our immediate day to day is that we allow the government to take away all the freedoms we are not currently using. What I mean by that is we so far have not had to face what it means to be powerless and in chains. But only because we haven’t yet ventured out far enough so as to reach the end of our chains. Like a sleeping dog that isn’t aware he’s been shackled until he wakes and tries to chase a bird, we are asleep and unaware of the shackles placed around our ankles.

Some will say “wait, it isn’t apathy it is a trade off between safety and freedom”. But the truth is freedom and safety are not conflictual we’ve only been led to believe so. Fear has replaced freedom here in America and that is not by chance but by strategy of a government that has its own agenda, separate from its oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. So while we should have prosecuted these recent governments for treason we’ve instead rewarded them the rights of dictatorship.

The Constitution is our freedom keeper but once the Constitution is made subordinate the precedent is set and in our legal system precedence is king. The strength in the Constitution is just that, it’s strength. Once we allow an exception to the Constitution’s superseding authority it no longer has any authority. Unfortunately that exception has already been made. With it, the destruction of the Constitution and the end to a guaranty of freedom. Our corrupt government has created ‘legislation’ providing them a legal basis to imprison us without due process. This is a fact.”

Read more:

http://www.firstrebuttal.com/2015/05/04/frankly-my-dear-i-dont-give-a-damn/

 

Hat tip to Zero Hedge.

 

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

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

“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

 

 

The Blaze on April 24, 2015 covered a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger who was not born in the US.

“Legendary action movie star and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may have been born in Austria — but make no mistake, he’s 100 percent American.

Appearing on SiriusXM’s “Opie With Jim Norton” radio show on Wednesday, Schwarzenegger proclaimed that he owes his entire career to the United States of America. The actor expressed his deep love for America after comedian Jim Norton asked if he had a desire to run for president, something he’s unable to do because he wasn’t born in the country.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/24/arnold-schwarzeneggers-epic-response-when-hes-asked-if-constitution-should-be-amended-so-he-can-run-for-president/

“something he’s unable to do because he wasn’t born in the country.”

This is in direct contradiction to Glenn Beck who believes that Ted Cruz is eligible.

From Citizen Wells March 25, 2015.

“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’.”

 

 

 

Thanks to great commenter bob strauss.

Obama birth certificate conclusion, Obama and Ted Cruz natural born citizen status, Obama and Cruz eligibility, No document presented to prove US birth, Obama and media lies never end, Some patriots spoke out

Obama birth certificate conclusion, Obama and Ted Cruz natural born citizen status, Obama and Cruz eligibility, No document presented to prove US birth, Obama and media lies never end, Some patriots spoke out

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“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

 

 

 

Proof of US birth not birth recorded is the issue.

With all due respect to the Arpaio Zullo investigation and analysis and commentary from others, it does not matter whether or not the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov, purported to be Obama’s birth certificate, is legitimate or not.

The state of Hawaii may consider this format legal to represent registration of birth in Hawaii.

If it is 100% legitimate and from the state of Hawaii, it still does not prove US birth.

WhiteHouseGovBC

1. It is not a copy of a birth certificate of that year stamped/embossed to prove it is a certified copy.

HawaiiNordyke1961BCexample

2. It is a computer generated document with data alleged to be pulled from databases. The verbage at the bottom states “or abstract.”

WhiteHOuseBCabstract

3. The words “or abstract” will disqualify the image in a court of law as proof positive of a Hawaii birth for Obama. Why? Because per Hawaii law ( check it for yourself ) you can be born elsewhere and have your birth data recorded in Hawaii just as if you were born there.

The lies emanating from the Obama camp and media made “1984” look amateurish.

Many patriots did speak out about the birth certificate, other Obama records and Obama’s natural born citizen deficiencies.

CDR Charles Kerchner filed his first lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility on January 20, 2009 prior to the inauguration.

Even though the main position of the lawsuit was Obama’s natural born citizen deficiency due to not having 2 US citizen parents, he included the following:

“Endnotes”

“7. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country” (applies to adopted children). A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the
American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the
original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout).
Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.””

Here are some articles from Citizen Wells that explain this more in detail.

From Citizen News.

“Obama birth certificate facts and lies, History prior to WhiteHouse.gov image”

“My first article about anything purported to be a birth certificate for Barack Obama was on August 8, 2008. It was about allegations that the COLB, Certification of Live Birth, was fake.

Obama did not present this, it was just placed on a few websites.

We later learned that it did not matter if it was fake or authentic.

Why?

Because a generated birth certificate like the COLB does not prove Hawaiian or US birth.

Why?

Because you do not have to be born in Hawaii to have your birth registered there and at the time of Obama’s birth, there were 4 ways to get it done.

From Western Journalism June 10, 2009.

“I think that I now understand the legal background to the question of where Obama was born.

Let’s begin with the statement that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released on October 31, 2008. The television and print media used this statement as a reason to prevent and treat with contempt any investigation into whether Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. But the language of the statement was so carefully hedged and guarded that it should have had the opposite effect.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

It is understandable that after such an apparently definitive statement most news outlets, whether conservative or liberal, would accept this as sufficient grounds to relegate the controversy to the status of a fringe phenomenon. Unless they happened to take the trouble to look into the “state policies and procedures” as laid down by the relevant statutes. If they had done so, they would have seen that Dr. Fukino’s press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless. But the media in general should not be faulted. The statement seems to roll out with such bureaucratic certainty and final authority. I believed it to be significant until a Honolulu attorney mailed me the relevant statutes. I was so surprised that I laughed out loud.

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/04/01/obama-birth-certificate-facts-and-lies-history-prior-to-whitehouse-gov-image-colb-no-document-presented-to-prove-us-birth-hawaii-birth-certificate-generated-does-not-prove-birth-there/

From Citizen News.

““Who is lying?

Neil Abercrombie?

Tim Adams?

Barack Obama?

From the White House blog.

“President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate
Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on April 27, 2011 at 08:57 AM EDT
In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the President received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver’s license from the state and the document recognized by the Federal Government and the courts for all legal purposes. That’s because it is the birth certificate. This is not and should not be an open question.”

““The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state”

There are 2 lies in that statement.

If you have been paying attention, you should immediately recognize one.

It, even if authentic, does not prove birth in Hawaii or the US.”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/04/01/obama-birth-certificate-facts-and-lies-whitehouse-gov-image-april-27-2011-more-lies-no-document-presented-to-prove-us-birth-hawaii-birth-certificate-generated-does-not-prove-bir/

From Citizen News.

“SOMEBODY IS LYING.

Obama? He has consistently lied to the American people about his records, his associations with criminals like Tony Rezko and about the health care bill. Obama is a liar.

Neil Abercrombie? The newly elected Governor of Hawaii suggested in an interview with the Honolulu Star Advertiser that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Tim Adams ? a elections official in Honolulu in 2008 signed an affifavit stating:”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/04/01/obama-birth-certificate-facts-and-lies-whitehouse-gov-image-somebody-is-lying-obama-neil-abercrombie-tim-adamsdonald-trump-loretta-fuddy-no-document-presented-to-prove-us-birth/

From Citizen News.

“Jana Winter and Fox intentionally misleading Americans?”

“Jana Winter of Fox news presented this article on April 29, 2011.

“Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Legit”

“The White House has released President Obama’s long-form birth certificate, saying the document is “proof positive” the president was born in Hawaii.

It didn’t take long for some of President Obama’s doubters to claim the long-awaited birth certificate posted online by the White House on Wednesday had been altered or might be a fake.

But a leading software expert says there’s no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong.

The doubters have latched onto the idea that Adobe Illustrator — the premier program for computer graphic artists — “reveals” evidence of document manipulation in the Obama birth certificate. They note Illustrator reveals nine separate layers of the document, and claim it’s “proof” the file has been altered.

But that’s not so, says Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

First of all, I have not questioned whether or not this document actually came from the State of Hawaii or not or whether or not the the document was “photoshopped.” It was not the core issue for me.

The article heading is at least misleading or an outright lie.

“Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Legit”

  • Jean-Claude Tremblay ia a Adobe-certified expert. He only addressed the issue of document manipulation.
  • No mention was made of whether or not Tremblay was a birth certificate expert.
  • Tremblay has not been given access to an original birth certificate.
  • Tremblay did not say that the document was an authenticate presentation of Obama’s original birth certificate.

Why does the article contain these statements?”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/04/01/obama-birth-certificate-facts-and-lies-whitehouse-gov-image-jana-winter-and-fox-intentionally-misleading-americans-image-analysis-ocr-software-no-document-presented-to-prove-us-birth/

 

 

 

 

Obama not eligible, Crossville Chronicle, May 9, 2011, Removed from office by Section 3 of 20th Amendment which provides a remedy if President is deemed unqualified, Obama and Cruz not natural born citizens

Obama not eligible, Crossville Chronicle, May 9, 2011, Removed from office by Section 3 of 20th Amendment which provides a remedy if President is deemed unqualified, Obama and Cruz not natural born citizens

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“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

 

 

I reported this in 2011.

“The Crossville Chronicle has been the paper of record for Cumberland County since 1886.”

An American news outlet, telling the truth in 2011.

This bears repeating.

From the Crossville Chronicle May 9, 2011.

“Why was President Obama’s birth certificate even being discussed? It was due to a clause in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which 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;…”

The Founders borrowed the term “natural born citizen” from the international treatise known as the “Law of Nations,” which appears in the U.S. Constitution under Article I and the enumerated powers of congress.

The Constitution does not say “citizen”; it specifically combines the legal concepts of jus soli (right of the soil) and of citizen parents, jus sanguinis (right of blood). It was intentionally designed by the Framers to prevent a President from having dual allegiance.

To be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, one must be the blood offspring of a father who was at the time of birth, a legal U.S. citizen. Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this definition well… its not at all complicated.

President Obama has already admitted to not being the son of a U. S. citizen and is, therefore, not a “natural born citizen.”

Why doesn’t the Supreme Court simply issue an Order stating that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and remove him from office? Because the members of the Supreme Court know, or suspect, that the streets would run red with the blood of its citizens if it removed President Obama from office, and additionally make every law signed by President Obama void or voidable.

As simple as it is to determine that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” the result of doing so could possibly destroy this country and no one seems to have the courage to risk that possibility.

Donald Trump probably thought President Obama would never release a copy of his “long form vault” birth certificate and Trump probably believed that this would damage the President’s ability to win a second term of office thereby giving Trump a better chance of winning if he became the Republican candidate.

It is interesting to note that the natural born requirement became the basis of a 2008 challenge, not to Obama’s candidacy, but to John McCain’s. The issue was taken so seriously, it required Senate resolution 511. The “natural born citizen” clause was also a serious issue for Presidents Arthur and Jackson. The basic difference is that the media and the courts took the issue seriously back then. After all, we are talking about a Constitutional issue, the Supreme Law of the land.

If President Obama is found to be ineligible, no articles of impeachment need to be drawn up. No voters need to be disenfranchised. Simply invoke Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, which provides a remedy if a President is deemed unqualified.”

Read more:

http://www.crossville-chronicle.com/opinion/stumptalk-donald-trump-and-the-birth-certificate/article_463d567f-d719-5658-ba77-041f0a1db71a.html

Ted Cruz, any response?

Citizen News March 31, 2015, Ted Cruz eligibility, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen, Illegal immigrants get white collar jobs, Keeping Rod Blagojevich quiet

Citizen News March 31, 2015, Ted Cruz eligibility, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen, Illegal immigrants get white collar jobs, Keeping Rod Blagojevich quiet

“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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

 

 

Ted Cruz eligibility

Ted Cruz stated that he was born a citizen of the US. Prior to his presidential run announcement that could be considered the truth, depending on which immigration statute du jour that you look at and whether or not he complied with them.

Now that Cruz is running for president, it is misleading and therefore a lie.

He must be a natural born citizen to be president and that is defined in the US constitution and the definition at the time of ratification still applies. It has not been amended.

The US Supreme court has also not redefined the meaning of natural born citizen.

Why have so many in the media, as well as the Harvard Law Review been so quick to state that Cruz is eligible?

The answer is simple.

To protect Obama.

Obama had 1 US citizen parent and was born in who in the hell knows where.

Obama eligibility

Prior to Kerchner v Obama, the emphasis was on no proof of US birth for Obama, the missing authentic birth certificate (we still haven’t seen one).

In the initial filing of the lawsuit, the emphasis is on compliance with the original definition of natural born citizen, born to 2 US citizen parents on US soil.

For those who have not read it or want to revisit it.

CDR Charles F. Kerchner, et al v Barack Obama, et al.

“Obama’s Father Not a U.S. Citizen

44. Presumably Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.
45. Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of Obama’s birth was a British subject/citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, and would have handed down British citizenship to his son, Obama. Endnote 8.
46. Obama publicly admits his father was not a U.S. citizen and was a British
subject and then a Kenyan citizen when Kenya became an independent country.
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.”

“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.””

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2015/03/30/cdr-charles-f-kerchner-jr-v-barack-obama-january-20-2009-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-1-us-citizen-parent-no-proof-of-us-birth-obama-british-citizen-litigation-fails-due-to-lack-of-standing/

US Jobs

Citizen Wells has been reporting the real jobs situation and the decimation of white american jobs.

Here is another correlation to the jobs data.

From Citizen News March 31, 2015.

“Unauthorized aka illegal immigrants gain more white collar jobs”

From Pew Research March 26, 2015.

“In a reflection of changes in the overall economy since the Great Recession, the U.S. unauthorized immigrant workforce now holds fewer blue-collar jobs and more white-collar ones than it did before the 2007-2009 recession, but a solid majority still works in low-skilled service, construction and production occupations, according to new Pew Research Center estimates.”

“Unauthorized immigrants made up 5.1% of the nation’s labor force in 2012, numbering 8.1 million who were working or looking for work, according to previously published Pew Research estimates (Passel and Cohn, 2014). But as this new analysis shows, they account for a far higher share of the total workforce in specific jobs, notably farming (26%), cleaning and maintenance (17%), and construction (14%).”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2015/03/31/unauthorized-aka-illegal-immigrants-gain-more-white-collar-jobs-pew-research-march-26-2015-over-8-million-illegals-in-labor-force-over-5-percent-26-percent-of-all-immigrants-75-percent-of-obama/

Blagojevich

Speaking of protecting Obama.

We are still waiting on a ruling on the Rod Blagojevich appeal.

Why the hurry.

This has only been going on for almost 15 years from the time his administration first came under investigation by the feds through Blagojevich becoming poised to run for president until 2006 when he and Obama traded places, my belief that a deal was struck to protect Obama, his arrest after the 2008 election, 2 trials, numerous delays, hiding of evidence, an inordinate amount of elapsed time for an appeal decision…..

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

This sounds more like the old Soviet Union than what I remember of the US.