Ted Cruz was born to an American mother and an alien father, in the country of Canada. Questions regarding the constitutional eligibility of Cruz to serve as President  surround his candidacy. 
Barack Obama was born to an American mother and an alien father in the island state of Hawaii.  Questions regarding the constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President surrounded his candidacy.
Ted Cruz is a Harvard trained lawyer,  He is verbally highly proficient.
Barack Obama is a Harvard lawyer.  He is verbally proficient with a teleprompter.
Ted Cruz is a one term Senator who has served only half of his term, now running for President.  Cruz has no executive experience running anything, not even running a lemonade stand.
Barack Obama was a one term Senator, who had served less than half of his term, when he ran for President.  Obama had no executive experience to prepare him for the most important executive position in the world.  The country has paid dearly for Obama's lack of executive experience and his unfitness for the job of President of the United States.
Does the Republican Party and the United States want to make the same mistake by electing a Ted Cruz to the White House?  Cruz's resume and Obama's resume are so similar that it is frightening to consider the consequences of making such a mistake again.
Reference is made to a post by  Ronald A. Nelson  Col.USA (Ret), who gave us the following  website to clarify and understand the definition of a "natural born citizen" as defined in the Constitution.  
The Citizenship provisions of the Constitution are set forth in the 14th  Amendment. The  methods for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V; and Congress may not amend the Constitution by making a law which redefines terms set forth in the Constitution!
Under a true interpretation of the 14th Amendment,  neither Cruz nor Obama meet the definition of natural born citizens, because one of their parents was subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign land at the time of their births.  Kenya in Obama'' case, and Cuba in Cruz's case. "Only someone who is born a citizen, by being born of parents who are already citizens, is eligible to be President". 
Not everyone born here is a "citizen".  The children of documented and undocumented  
immigrants, are not citizens because their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of another country.  Only those whose parents (both parents) are subject to the jurisdiction of the US are citizens at birth. 
"Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders whose allegiance is to the Country they left".
Under a true interpretation of the 14th Amendment,  neither Cruz nor Obama meet the definition of natural born citizens, because one of their parents was subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign land at the time of their births.  Kenya in Obama'' case, and Cuba in Cruz's case. "Only someone who is born a citizen, by being born of parents who are already citizens, is eligible to be President". 
"Once we accept that our President need not be a "natural born citizen",   we will have made a major step towards submission to global government. Because then, anybody can be President".
Thank you,  Ronald A. Nelson  Col.USA (Ret), for the above referenced website. 

Views: 2734

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Frankmusic, break it down with a graphic.

Sorry. We've been there. Nothing to see here.

O M G!!  How in the world could one compare Cruz to king Obama.  Cruz is twice the man Obamaidiot will ever be.  Trump & Cruz for the USA!  I'll take the chance!  Or lock & load folks.....

Cruz is not a  Muslim, he probably knows how many states are in the Union, he doesn't constantly whine about America, believes in the constitution and is proud of our heritage. 

At least Cruz isn't an America-hating, Communist Jihadist sympathizer.

But he IS ineligible, IS in favor of increasing H1-B's fivefold and immigration quotas doubled, midwifed TPA, his wife is a GS CFR amnesty tool and more.

Elizabeth Jones who are you supporting ?

Good luck on getting a reply Vito!

I hear you

Lyle, I provided a reply to Vito.  Please read.

Pretty tough to say, Elizabeth, since none meet my requirements.  By process of elimination, if I eliminate all the ineligibles, RINO's, weak sisters and ant-Constitutionalists, only Trump is left. But he is intemperate, supports single-payer healthcare and not long ago was demanding gun bans and funding Killary. So, it's difficult to say.

See this?

 Vito, you misunderstand the purpose of my discussion.  To be an effective President of our country, one needs executive experience.  Neither Cruz nor Obama had or have experience while running for President.  This is a pure and objective observation of both men's backgrounds, when it comes to birth, education, time spent in the Senate, and lack of executive experience. 

All of the other laudatory remarks you make about Cruz and the derogatory comments you make about Obama (which I agree with) do  not detract or add to the objective facts raised in my discussion about their qualifications to serve as Chief Executive Officer and President of our country.  We need to be honest and objective with ourselves in order to select the right candidate.  Since you ask me, my personal choice is Donald J Trump, who will make America great and safe again. 





Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service