FREEDOM RINGS 1776 is a conservative voice, defending the views of those who still believe in the constitution and opposing any and all who would lead us from our tried and true beliefs. We who still believe in the spirit of 1776 must oppose anyone who would set this nation on a course that will fundamentally transform America.
Danny Jeffrey


Ted Cruz
The past five years have given rise to those who briefly inspired the hopes of so many conservatives that this is 'The One' that will lead America back to the Promised Land. All too soon we found that our latest idol has feet of clay and walks with comfort among those of the enemy camp. John McCain most assuredly heads up that group as millions rallied behind him as the latest Moses. Add Christie to the list, along with Rubio, Paul Ryan, and even the walking personification of Progressivism, Mitt Romney. All have given hope. None have led.

Now we find before us one who appears to be a true patriot, Ted Cruz. He says the right things, votes the right way, and doesn't use a teleprompter or even a podium to hold his speech and notes. He needs them not. Mister Cruz appears to be a walking encyclopedia, well versed in historic fact as well as modern days realities and statistics. In short, he appears to be a true leader of the waning conservative movement. Consequently many of the hopeful are looking to him to be our next President, and that aspiration opens a whole new can of worms.

We complained that Obama did not meet the Constitution's requirement of a natural born citizen. While unable to get his fabricated birth certificate before a court of law most believe that he was born in Kenya, thus disqualifying him. Cruz was born in Canada. We state that Obama's Kenyan father was not not born in the USA, thus disqualifying Hussein from occupying the Oval Office. Cruz senior, like Obama senior, was not born in the U.S. either. He was born in Cuba. What is the difference? The difference is we like Ted Cruz, and many want Obama out and Cruz in, which brings us to the teachings of Saul Alinsky; rules four and five. 

Rule #4 says "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If we can accept in Ted Cruz what we cannot accept in Barrack Obama then we are opening ourselves to an onslaught of ridicule, which brings us to rule #5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." 

I have long believed that a natural born citizen, qualified to be President, is the offspring of two American citizens and neither Obama, nor Cruz, nor Rubio qualify, and for those who want to see Cruz elected President and will justify it on the terms that Obama was foreign born with only an American mother, why not Cruz? That takes us back to the morality intended by the Forefathers. They wanted no divided loyalties in the highest office in the land.

First off, I do believe that Obama and his string pullers are playing for keeps, and are not planning to give up the White House at all. The dictator is all in, he just hasn't revealed his hole card as of yet. If an election actually occurs in 2016 then you can rest assured that like 2012 it will be rigged, and Ted Cruz is not going to win under any circumstances.

Look to the past election. The GOP put forth their choice for our candidate, and that choice was met with derision across the nation. There was a conflict of interests. Conservative Americans wanted what was best for America. The GOP wanted a candidate that would follow the agenda of the Globalists. Surprise! Surprise! When it was all said and done, the Globalists' Progressive candidate became 'our' candidate. I wrote at that time that he was a shill, running for President with the sole purpose of guaranteeing an Obama victory. I angered many with that essay, but history has proven me to be correct.

But now, after much research, I am not so certain that I have been correct about the definition of a 'natural born citizen'. Like so many I accepted without question the premise that a natural born citizen must be the offspring of two American citizens and born within the United States. This was the argument put forth to delegitimize Hussein Obama. Finding little legitimate about him that was an easy concept to believe. History, however, seems to present a different picture.

The Following is a letter from John Jay To George Washington:
New-York, 25th July, 1787
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,

The Committee on Detail had only specified that the President be a citizen and a resident for 21 years, after seeing Jay's letter amended their outline and changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen".

From the Avalon Project: Madison Debates September 4, 1787
(5) 'Sect. 2. No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty five years, and who has not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U. S.'

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, all present had been born British Citizens of the colonies and gained their U.S. citizenship through their participation in the Revolution. They had paid their dues and wanted to make certain that no naturalized citizens from abroad could rise to the position of Commander in Chief. Thus a natural born citizen was a man born in the U.S.A..

Naturalization Act Of 1790...
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". It thus left out American Indians, indentured servantsslaves, free blacks, and Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever recognized the status of natural born citizen, requiring that state and federal officers not consider American children born abroad to be foreigners.[1][2]

The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years.

The next major confrontation on the definition of natural born citizen occurred in 1862. Prior to the Civil War the exact legal definition of 'natural born citizen' was accepted. Until that time there were only two kinds of citizens. White men and women born within the confines of the United States or born abroad to an American father, and naturalized white citizens born abroad, becoming citizens by choice.

The abolition of slavery brought forth a new legal question about the potential citizenship of previous slaves who were born in the U.S.A. Once freed, their birthplace by default, granted them citizenship as well. This naturally set none too well with the Democratic Party.

Much of the debate we hear today about natural born citizens is based upon the meaning of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. That takes us into the pages of history where we find when and why it was written. In 1857 The Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case that no person descended from African slaves could be citizens. Overturning the High Court ruling was the purpose of this section of this Amendment.

It was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments putting slavery to rest once and for all. The following is section one of that much discussed Amendment and I challenge any reader to find the part that says that both parents of the President must be citizens as many would lead us to believe:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For the record, John Bingham was the primary person responsible for the drafting of the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.[17]

In 1866 Mister Bingham clarified his views:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[18]

And a misinterpretation of this is what gave birth to the two citizen parents concept. Note the phrasing: of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.  
A man and woman immigrating to the U.S. with the intent to make a home here and become citizens owed no allegiance to any foreign nation. Foreign diplomats and their staff at embassies within this nation do owe allegiance elsewhere, and a birth among such people does not constitute the birth of an American citizen.

People of the 19th century regarded citizenship with a sanctity that we lack. Case in point from the same link as above:
In 1875 Secretary of State Hamilton Fish questioned U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont about an unusual case. A baby had been born to a German immigrant in Missouri. When the child was four his father returned to Germany taking the child and relinquishing his own American citizenship. The young man had just turned twenty and was about to be drafted into the German army and he wants to return to the U.S.

Pierrepot's reply: (Very important)
"Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. .... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States.... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father."

Most of this passage, including the line about being elected President, was quoted approvingly by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1939 decision in Perkins v. Elg,[25]a case involving a similar question about an American-born girl in Sweden.

From Cornell University Law School:
USC - 1401 - Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth 
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
Note...There is no requirement as to the parents citizenship. Mere birth creates a natural born citizen.
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Alright, the fact that Marco Rubio was born in Miami makes him a natural born citizen.
(b) as far as we are concerned is irrelevant as it has to do with tribes such as Eskimo and Native Americans.
(c) has to do with babies born outside of the U.S. with both parents already American citizens. Not applicable to either Obama or Cruz.
(d) and (e) has to do with one parent an American citizen and the other an American National but not a citizen, such as Samoan.
(e) This one held a trace of hope, but that hope failed to materialize. It has to do with one parent an American citizen, the other not, giving birth in a foreign nation that is not a U.S. Possession. The catch. This only would have applied in Obama or Cruz's case if the mother had been serving in the military.

There are a few other provisions but none that would make Ted Cruz eligible to run for President of the United States. The above is only a brief description of the term of natural born citizen. This link will show you the wording in detail.

I began this essay convinced that Hussein Obama, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio were all ineligible to hold the office of President. My research has further augmented my belief about Obama and Cruz, but RINO Rubio is legally eligible to hold that high office.

In all honesty I cannot help but feel that the effort expended in researching and writing this essay is largely wasted. Without a doubt some few will accept my findings. Most will not. I recall a line from an old Paul Simon song that said "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." So shall it be with this essay. 

People are desperate. Conservatives need a leader and many are saying now that Ted Cruz is 'The One' and they will cling to that idea as though it is a religious conviction. They will learn the hard way!

The left managed to get an illegal candidate in office but many conservatives are far too honest to do what the Progressives have done, and here is a small inkling of what is to be:

From Salon...
What If We Demanded Ted Cruz's Papers?

From Dallas News...
Canada born Ted Cruz might have to prep for his own birther fight

From The Washington Post...
Is Ted Cruz Eligible To Run For President?

From The Christian Science Monitor...
Ted Cruz Presidential Race 2016: Whose Worst Nightmare?

Closing thought:
At the moment I hold Ted Cruz in the highest esteem. I hope that he does not give me reason to regret that high regard. The simple fact of the matter is that he knows Constitutional law far better than do I and if he pursues the office of the President, he will be walking on that Constitution just as the Progressives have done.

I would love to see this country return to normal and have a man of his obvious talents become a member of the Supreme Court or Secretary of State, but under no circumstances should he ever try to ascend to the Oval Office. He is not a natural born citizen and that is what the law of the land calls for. That law has been broken by one man twice. May it never happen again.

Suggested Reading...
The Proof About Our Latest Sham Election
Where Is Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney...Progressive Shill

1 comment:

Joanna said...

You forgot Jindal...
many 'conservatives'are calling for him to make a bid in 2016 'presidential" run...


...your judgement placed many times before and for a long time that the REPUBLIC is dead makes a statement by its own and fully agreed with!!!!!

we have sell-outs for reps and 99% brain dead society !!

like some has said: