Topic: Just to rile things up a little...

[AmericanPatriot]

This is not a left wing site.

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams317.htm

TED CRUZ IS IN THE US SENATE ILLEGALLY?

By J.B. Williams
 December 4, 2015
 NewsWithViews.com

US Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, has been under fire in his bid for the White House due to his Canadian citizenship records which make it quite clear that he does not meet the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, despite the opinion letter from his Harvard friends.

Following a total lack of vetting on Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and 2012, many insist that no one ever enter the Oval Office again without proper vetting, including proof of meeting all Constitutional requirements for office. Obama’s massive destruction of our Constitutional Republic has placed the issue of Constitutional eligibility on the front burner for many Americans, and partisanship has nothing to do with it.

In the effort to vet every 2016 presidential candidate, Cruz, who had once stated that both he and Barack Obama were ineligible for the Oval Office, found himself under tight scrutiny from the same people who tried to stop Obama from taking the Oval Office via fraud. Ted placed himself in the crosshairs of constitutionalists who do not care about partisan politics, by seeking an office he is not eligible to seek.

In investigating Cruz eligibility for the Oval Office, his eligibility for the US Senate came into question…

The Constitutional requirements for the US Senate are as follows;


“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

At 42 years old in 2012, Ted Cruz obviously met the age requirement of 30 years. However, he also needed to meet the requirement of at least “nine Years a Citizen of the United States.” As the Constitution states, one cannot be just an “Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

The known source for the Founders use of the term natural born Citizen, The Law of Nations, also defines “Inhabitant” as follows;


§ 213. Inhabitants.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.”

Today, the legal term for this condition in the United States is “illegal alien,” someone in our country and living under U.S. jurisdiction, without legally belonging to society. Modern social justice attitudes often refer to these people as “undocumented citizens” which of course are not citizens at all. Our I.R.S. created a new class of “citizen” for the purpose of collecting taxes from illegal aliens, “resident alien” which is an inhabitant (not a citizen) who pays taxes.

Contrary to current leftist social justice ideologies that view all “illegal aliens” in the U.S. as only “unauthorized” or “undocumented” citizens, our laws identify them as nothing more than “illegal aliens,” or “resident aliens” who pay taxes under I.R.S. codes.

Further, in any matter of law, authenticated evidence supersedes any and all politically motivated opinions, especially opinions which are either unfounded or poorly founded. Unlike Barack Hussein Obama who posted three forged U.S. Certifications of Live Birth and later a Hawaiian newspaper announcement of his birth to evidence his Oval Office eligibility, Ted Cruz issued his Canadian Birth Certificate as evidence of being “born a citizen of Canada.”

The above Canadian document is proof of Canadian Citizenship at birth for Senator Ted Cruz. The next piece of authenticated evidence released by Ted Cruz is a Canadian document proving that he remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship in May of 2014, which means, he was still a legal citizen of Canada in 2012 when he ran for, was elected and took the oath of office for the US Senate.

Again, the above authenticated evidence proves that Ted Cruz was born Canadian in 1970 and remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing his Canadian citizenship in May of 2014. These official documents also prove that Ted Cruz was a legal citizen of Canada in 2012, when he sought and claimed a seat in the U.S. Senate as a legal US citizen.

As a result of this damning evidence, the Cruz campaign hired friends at Harvard to issue a letter which makes a legal case for how Ted Cruz (and Barack Obama) might be a natural born Citizen of the United States eligible to seek the Oval Office. However, a legal opinion letter is not equal to, nor does it supersede authentic evidence to the contrary.

It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a CRBA form with a U.S. Consulate at the time of birth.

The statutes governing this naturalization process state;


“A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

According to related U.S. laws governing “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories,” the following conditions had to be met in order for Ted Cruz to legally claim U.S. citizenship at birth via these naturalization statutes, through his mother.

The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday.


If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:


• Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
• Employed with the U.S. government; or
• Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

Ted’s parents were at no time serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, employed by the U.S. Government or by any of the certain international organizations, during their eight years in Canada, between 1966 and 1974. Further, Ted’s father Rafael, was at no time a legal citizen of the United States prior to naturalizing in 2005, from Canada. Rafael’s known legal citizenship status as of 1970 was Cuban, not American.

This is an EXAMPLE of a US CRBA Form

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or parents of Ted Cruz ever filed a CRBA form with the U.S. Government in or around 1970, which is why Ted Cruz released a copy of his Canadian citizenship records and not any U.S. citizenship records. At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.

As a result, there remains no authentic evidence to support the claims that Ted Cruz is either a “natural born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States.

Without any form of U.S. Citizenship documentation, and proof of Canadian citizenship at birth in 1970 and holding that legal status until May 2014 when he renounced his birth citizenship to Canada, there is no way for Ted Cruz to prove that he is either “natural born” and eligible for the Oval Office, or “naturalized” prior to 2012, when he sought and accepted a seat in the U.S. Senate as a legal citizen of Canada.

[Libertas]

Yup, as we've discussed previously...the corrupt bargain McCain made with Obama let Obama off the hook and redefined eligibility by simple majority vote in Congress, and once the genie was let out there is no putting it back in for any instance.  What the law says is what the people on the inside say it is.  Welcome to latter day America.  That laughably corrupt cert Obama produced might as well have been written in crayon.  This is not our Founders Republic.

[warpmine]

At this point, who cares where and what Ted is or was? After Obama, the dam crashed and the water became a disastrous flood that has destroyed the last bit of law the republic had left.
If Cruz isn't eligible then where were those people when Obama was allowed to take office?

We've all danced around the "rule of law" being lost for quite some time now and I ask, forgive me, what difference does it make now, the Republic is f***ing dead and along with her, the rule of law therefore I care not.

When Obama's usurpation is dealt with on a serious note, let me know but ain't holding my breath.

[AmericanPatriot]

Those same people have bitched about Obama.
If we advocate for the Constitution, it's all or none.

[Libertas]

Those same people have bitched about Obama.
If we advocate for the Constitution, it's all or none.

Not all of them...Progs regardless of affiliation...let Obama slide.  We/History condemns them all.

[AmericanPatriot]

I meant the people who wrote the article as well as the publication, News With Views.

[Libertas]

Aye.

[Pandora]

For the record, some of the information in that piece is incorrect and I don't have time right now to suss out a refute.

[AmericanPatriot]

I just reported it.

I am convinced he's not a natural born citizen for President.
This is the first I've heard that he may not be a citizen at all

[Pandora]

I just reported it.

I know; did you think I took a shot at you?

I am convinced he's not a natural born citizen for President.
This is the first I've heard that he may not be a citizen at all

As I wrote .....

[AmericanPatriot]

Heck no, Pan, and it would be cool if you did.
We don't all agree on all things and politics certainly can cause passion.

[warpmine]

Personally since the Republic is dead, I could care less about his origins. Can't be any worse the current pos infesting the White Hut.

Give me a holler when the rule of law makes a come back. Other than that should we care if we have civil war or succession?

[AmericanPatriot]

I respect but disagree with you Warp.

Even as it falls apart there needs to be guiding principles.
If we're to come out the other side, we need something to build on

[John Florida]

  All this is is payback for the Birther movement. Red meat for their base. IGNORE!!!  We have bigger fish to fry.

[Libertas]

I am not going to dwell on the Senate stuff...who knows where that stuff came from, have to see how/if Cruz responds to that, but regarding POTUS we've had that debate already and lost...so as far as that goes JF is right, move on, the bigger fish to fry is on that backside thing AP mentioned, principles are going to have to be restored when the ground is fertile enough to accept it, and that won't happen until a lot more compost is created.

[AmericanPatriot]

I don't think this has anything to do with the Birther movement, John.
At least as far as reaction to it.
If anything, it has been pro-Birther.

This is a very conservative newsletter and I mean conservative  in it's true sense.
Constitutionalist.
A lot of the stuff on there is fundamental Christian and lots of constitutional writing.
Pastor Chuck Baldwin is one of their featured writers, for example.

No progressive crap from there

[warpmine]

I don't think this has anything to do with the Birther movement, John.
At least as far as reaction to it.
If anything, it has been pro-Birther.

This is a very conservative newsletter and I mean conservative  in it's true sense.
Constitutionalist.
A lot of the stuff on there is fundamental Christian and lots of constitutional writing.
Pastor Chuck Baldwin is one of their featured writers, for example.

No progressive crap from there

But why care? It's not as if anyone truly cares about the constitution. Cruz might be the only one that does and if that's the case then I'll let it slide. Reality is more important than theory and the left have violated the constitution and the very spirit of it so many times in the last century, I can't care about it any longer. The Republic is dead.

Looking for a foundation to build another one is great but seriously, can we talk of it after we vanquish the progressive scourge from our midst? That right there would go along way in having the proper foundation for the rule of law.

[John Florida]

I don't think this has anything to do with the Birther movement, John.
At least as far as reaction to it.
If anything, it has been pro-Birther.

This is a very conservative newsletter and I mean conservative  in it's true sense.
Constitutionalist.
A lot of the stuff on there is fundamental Christian and lots of constitutional writing.
Pastor Chuck Baldwin is one of their featured writers, for example.

No progressive crap from there

"Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or parents of Ted Cruz ever filed a CRBA form with the U.S. Government in or around 1970, which is why Ted Cruz released a copy of his Canadian citizenship records and not any U.S. citizenship records. At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies."

   That form means nothing it doesn't change the fact his mother is was and will always be an American. The form can be filed at any time to please the government but it's not needed to prove anything but rather only to comply with their rules.  Screw them what they need to look at is his parents not him.