I believe Ted Cruz would make a great President but I can't vote for him. There is a great reason our forefathers penned the President shall be a natural born citizen of the United States. Men or women that are raised outside the lower forty-eight will have different values. Senator Cruz is a great man but allowing him to stretch the intentions of the constitution is just as wrong as giving Obama a free pass. We missed the whole point by going the birther conflict approach. The facts are he was mentored pro- muslim, procommunist in either Indonesia or the Pacific Island of Hawaii. Our forefathers's would have screamed. Ted might have been raised in our country but he was born in Canada and had his citizenship there until recently. If Conservatives bend the intent of the great law, so will the Democrats. Make Ted the Senate Majority Leader or put him on the Supreme Court. Just quit trying to make the constitution fits our political ambitions!

Views: 30


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by davidfarrar on April 19, 2014 at 1:47pm


There are only two ways to become a US Citizen, either by natural law (natural born) or by man-made law (positive law, naturalized).

After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. “We are,” as first Chief Justice John Jay observed in 1789, in the Chisholm v. Georgia case, “sovereigns without subjects”. It is ‘as sovereigns’ then we must look to find the proper definition of the enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” inserted into Art. II, §1, cl. 4.”

As sovereigns, our children would inherit their sovereignty from their father (partus sequitur patrem), as natural law dictates. As sovereigns, they would also be ‘natural born citizens’ wherever their birth occurs, again, as natural law dictates.

The practical interpretation of this qualification, from the very beginning among US presidents and vice-presidents has been to require both parents to be US citizens and born within the jurisdiction. This prophetic tradition fits in nicely with the much later passage of the 1922 Marriage Act (Cable Act), wherein the allegiance of the wife was kept after marriage, thereby observing the sexual equality standards of today, while avoiding the inevitable growing list of resultant dual allegiances at birth.

Under this definition, neither Barack Obama, nor Sen Cruz, are Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizens. While both are born US Citizens, Barack Obama was born a natural subject of the British realm and Sen Cruz was born a natural citizen of Cuba

It is also helpful to understand that there is a difference between being born a citizen under natural law, and being born a natural US citizen under natural law. While the first employs jus sanguinis citizenship, US citizenship has always required consent, as accurately declared in Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. As sovereigns, all must consent to be governed. In the case of their offspring, this consent is carried forward under the cloak of allegiance of their citizen sovereign parents.

In Sen. Cruz’s case, since he has to quote Title 8 USC §1401 (g) (positive law) to acquire US citizenship at birth, he cannot possibly be an Art. II §I cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

In Obama’s case, assuming he was born in Hawaii; he was born a foreign national by his own admission, and, thus, must rely on positive law at the age of majority to become a ‘naturalized’ US citizen, making his occupancy of the office of the President of the United States unconstitutional as he is not an Art. II §I cl. 4 natural born Citizen

ex animo


Comment by Ann Baird Odom on April 18, 2014 at 8:08pm

I was really ignorant of what the framers meant until I did some research last night, and found an article on Bing, that has quotes from the late 1700s to early -mid 1800s regarding "natural born," and found that it refers to the FATHER of the baby having to be a citizen of a State~~~back before all the colonies joined together to become states.  But, the concern was the same then as now.  According to this, 0 is a British citizen, unless he renounced it, as his supposed father was a British citizen.  It didn't matter that his mother was an American citizen.  However, I've also read where it's believed that that Frank Marshall Davis was his father, and he certainly looks more like Davis than 0,sr.  I must say that I agree that Senator Cruz does not meet the criteria as his Father didn't become a citizen until some time later~~~not sure when as I'd have to look that up again.  And, I'm saying this, with Senator Cruz being my Senator!  One position he could fill is that of Secretary of State, and I believe he'd be good at that.  Remember that Henry Kissenger was Secretary of State, and he wasn't born in the U.S. and his parents weren't American citizens.  Anyhow, Ted doesn't have any ties to Canada as he attended the University of Texas at Austin, and has lived in Texas except when he clerked for Chief Justice Rhenquist.  I believe that is the Supreme Court Justice that he clerked for, before getting involved in the judicial system here in Texas.  And, he and his family live in Houston.

Comment by davidfarrar on March 24, 2014 at 12:04pm

I agree.

While I strongly agree with the stand Sen Cruz is undertaking to bring back a Reagan recovery, but if Sen. Cruz believes himself to be eligible to stand for the presidency of the United States, he must also believe the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country are also natural born citizens and can run for the President of the United States as well, without ever pledging to support and defend the US Const.

If Sen. Cruz believes himself to be eligible to stand for the presidency of the United States, he must also believe the power to set the qualifications for the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States lies not where the founders and framers had rightfully placed it, i.e., in the hands of we the People, but in the plenary hands of the state, i.e., Congress, i.e., positive law: Title 8 USC §1401 (g).

If Sen. Cruz believes himself to be eligible to stand for the presidency of the United States, he must also believe there is no difference between a natural born British subject and an natural born US Citizen.

Now I know, leftest, socialist, communists, and our courts, all believe these things to be true. If Sen. Cruz also believe these things to be true, then I cannot stand with him.

I hope Sen Cruz, at some point in time, can see the error of his ways, even if perhaps some of his more ardent supporters cannot, and steps up to the plate and leads the charge in restoring our most cherished American birthright from the gutter it has been placed by our courts. If he does such a thing, I am sure he will find himself sitting on the bench of the US Supreme Court, perhaps even as its chief justice, with his head held up high.

ex animo


Comment by michael solembrino on March 23, 2014 at 4:02pm

dave you have me thinking  . I did not know that, I agree with you. I saw through Obama this guy will never get my vote. he does not belong in Washington. thanks for the information 



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service