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 



 After Years Of Stagnation Under Obama 
Household Income Hits 50-Year High

Image result for money

Former President Barack Obama got plenty of praise for shepherding us through the recovery from the 2008 economic crisis. However, those on Main Street, USA, knew the truth — things weren’t any better than they had been when George W. Bush left office.

As The Weekly Standard reported in 2016, median household income when Obama came into office in 2009 was $56,731. In 2015, six years into his presidency, that number was $56,516 — a decrease of just over $200.

By the time he left office, it’s true that media household income had risen to $59,471 — but that was essentially the same as it had been in December, 2007, at the end of the “Great Recession” and just a few weeks before Obama took office, when it was $59,549.

So, how’s The Donald doing?

Well, as Investor’s Business Daily reported, a new study from Sentier Research found that the median household income in April was $61,483 — a 50-year high.

That’s up from $59,471 in January of 2017.

The firm tracks income using census data and adjusts for inflation — so even a slightly weaker dollar doesn’t account for the increase.

Donald Trump Jr.   @DonaldJTrumpJr  

Bad News For Dems: Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump … And He's Getting Credit For It!!! 

Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump, And He's Getting Credit For It

A new report shows that the median household income has climbed 3% since President Trump took office. It's another sign of a strong economy, and at least one poll shows the public credits Trump for...

That’s great news for the country, but maybe not the best news for Democrats.

“This is just another indication that the economy has notably strengthened under Trump. And polls show that the public’s mood has brightened considerably as a result,” Investor’s Business Daily reported.

“The latest IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index is 53.6. This index has been in positive territory (anything over 50 is optimistic) since Trump took office. The Quality of Life Index, meanwhile, hit a 14-year high in May and the Financial Stress Index is at an all-time low.”

That economic data is followed by a lot of polls that seem to show that the “blue wave” expected in the November midterms breaking and rolling back into the sea.

A new Reuters poll found that a generic Republican would beat a generic Democrat by six points. Back in March, the Democrats were up by nine points. A CBS poll found that Democrats had a two-point advantage on the generic ballot — hardly “wave” material.

The CBS poll also found that 68 percent of Americans believed Trump’s policies deserved at least some of the credit for the economic situation, with 35 percent saying he deserved a “great deal” of the credit.

Sixty-four percent of respondents rated the economy as “somewhat good” or “very good.” In a CNN poll, 57 percent of voters said that “things are going well in the U.S.” In February, that was 49 percent.

Perhaps the most important figure: Under Obama, when Gallup asked whether it was a good time to find “a quality job in the U.S.,” the highest number that administration ever achieved was 45 percent. Under Trump, that number is 67 percent — the highest number in the 17-year history of the poll.

While Trump’s personal numbers haven’t seen the same bounce, they’re still up — and that’s the important thing. Thanks to the relentless campaign of personal attacks against him, Trump’s stated approval rating has always been a lot lower than it probably is.

Don’t believe me? Just ask Hillary Clinton. For all of the personal barbs and attacks, 2016 ultimately came down to the economy. So will 2018 — and that’s not good news for the Democrats.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service