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

I won't vote for Cruz because he signed up for obamacare when his wife lost her insurance. Traitor!!

John---and now the rest of the story- Ted Cruz's wife quit her job so that she could work full time in Cruz's Campain. In the process, her and her family lost their Insurance. As part of the Perks for being a US Senitor, Senitors receive Medical benefits. After, Obamacare was passed the Senitors were REQIRED to sign up for Obamacare if they wanted the Government to pay for it.

I am supporting Trump but Cruz is a true patriot.

So John, are you saying that if Cruz was a true Patriot he would have stood up on the Senate floor and said he is rejecting Obamacare and is buying his own insurance?

Yes or he would take the me and my wife.

Cruz's Dad did become a US citizen whereas Obama's never did and that is the difference and shame on all those who never point that out when discussing the eligibility requirements as that is a factor when you look at the constitution on this matter. Both parents must be US citizens at time he or she submit to run for president and that is the difference between Cruz and Obama. Now besides that Obama's records of where and what he studied are sealed and Cruz's is there and available to see.I personally have more a problem with someone making this comparison then with the loony liberals positions and to think they are going to be voting is scary. Oh well, go Cruz 2016.


According to the 1875 Minor v. Happersett unanimous precedent setting decision, the definition of a natural born citizen is; born in the US of citizen parents (plural).  This decision has never been reversed or over-ruled and is totally consistent with the underlying legal philosophy (The Law of Nations, Natural Law) at the time the Constitution was written.

"This month, GOP political consultant-turned-analyst Tony Quinn wrote a piece for the website Fox&Hounds headlined “Ted Cruz Cannot Be President: Take Him Off The Ballot.” Quinn acknowledged the conventional view that Cruz is “natural born” but argued that the Framers added “natural born” to the citizen requirement to prevent the election of a candidate with foreign entanglements." Proof of Cruz's mother's citizenship is unavailable under FOIA. Have been researching eligibility for 8 years in attempt to expose fraud obuma. As obuma, Cruz's documents to PROVE his citizenship narrative is unavailable, with exception of his Canadian birth certificate, and denouncement of dual citizenship. Natural Born Citizens DO NOT hold dual citizenship or a foreign birth certificate. WHY doesn't Cruz release his documents to PROVE his claim? WHY?


You reference the article written recently by Tony Quinn regarding Cruz's ineligibility.  I think Mr. Quinn made a tactical mistake by quoting Rep. Bingham's remarks regarding citizenship and natural born citizenship.  No where is the term natural born citizen mentioned in the 14th amendment.  The  only term mentioned is citizen since that is the only authority Congress has according to the Constitution.  If Congress wants to define the term Natural Born Citizen, the only path they have to do so is via the Constitutional amendment process.  The Constitution is a Natural Law - Law of Nations based document.  It is not a document based on British Common Law.  There was a War of Independence fought to get out from under British rule and law.

What is sobering is certainly not you or your story. Shame on your site which is obviously incorrectly considered conservative. You can remove my email address from your list if this is the subterfuge you promote.

ivin lee,

laurel, md

Ivin, this site IS primarily patriotic and conservative. We have all sorts of points of view of issues and yes, there have been trolls here and there, but this tends to be far, far more conservative than most sites. The whole idea is to generate discussions and arrive at some sort of mutual ageement, which more or less reflects the conservative mainstream thinking. We dont like RINOs, and the establishment democrats and republicans. They are the reason for 90% of our and probably the worlds problems. If you disagree with someone, try to make your point of contention. Lets have healthy debates.

Tim Derickson for Congress. 

See what Tim stands for. 

Save America. Stop Washington.
That is why I am running for Congress and that is why I have officially filed the paperwork to appear on the ballot.
We can Save America and Stop Washington if we enact term-limits, pass a balanced budget amendment, restore our founding values and return the power of Washington to the people. 
You can help by making a contribution  to Derickson for Congress to help us win on March 15th!
Please CLICK HERE to make a contribution of $50, $25, $10 or any amount! 
Visit to learn more about where I stand on the issues and how to join the effort.
Kelly and I look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail!

Thank you,
He also has a penis just like O my dear are a fool!

There is nothing sobering in this article.....funny to use that word to get people to read a dumb ass article.

I hope this sobers you up Lizzy.




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