Tag Archive for: Ted Cruz

How About a little Compassion for We the People

/in , , , , /by

Nothing ignited my late mom’s Baltimore living-in-the-hood anger more than someone “messing” with one of her “nine months” (her kids). I have a similar protective reaction to attacks on the Tea Party/We the People.

Not only have We the People had to endure mainstream media, Democrat and GOP establishment attacks, some on our side are attacking us for not being “smart enough” to reject Donald Trump. I say, have a little compassion for us. We are witnessing our beloved once great nation becoming a banana republic (dishonest and lawless government) right before our eyes. As patriots, we have faithfully done all the right things. And yet, the wrong things keep happening.

On Fox News Brit Hume called us (the Tea Party) the far right. Senator John McCain called patriots who attended an anti-illegal immigration rally “crazies.” House Majority leader John Boehner called us the far right. Will somebody please tell me what is “crazy” and “far right” about expecting government to function according to our laws and the Constitution?

And then, these arrogant (language I will not use as a Christian) have the audacity to call us stupid for rallying behind Donald Trump.

Where is the compassion for We the people? Yes, my heart goes out for the people. Political Action Committees and GOP candidates raised funds, promising to git-r-done only to leave patriots suffering a string of broken promises. Adding insult to injury, betrayers in the GOP which we gave the House and the Senate call us names; even launching a war on conservatives and the Tea Party. For crying out loud, how much more are We the People expected to take?

To date, my favorite presidential contender is Ted Cruz. Cruz gets it. He sympathizes with all We the People have gone through and vows to fight to make things right, when given the chance.

In essence, both parties said, screw you to We the People. Our Washington cartel is going to further its agenda and there “ain’t” nothing you Tea Party yahoos can do about it. The GOP took us (We the People) out to sea and threw us overboard. Trump threw us a lifeline. Do not attack us for accepting it.

Imagine a fire is raging out-of-control consuming my home. A gang of Hells Angels bikers approaches from over the horizon. They jump off their bikes and begin helping me extinguish the fire. Do I throw up my hands yelling, “Stop! I don’t approve of your lifestyle”? Or, do I simply say thank you?

Please do not conclude I am comparing Trump to the Hells Angels. I am simply saying while you may not agree or even like everything about Trump, the man has unquestionably positively impacted the political landscape. For one thing, illegal immigration would not be on the table if Trump had not made it an issue; standing firm, while bombarded by both parties and the MSM.

Also, the way Trump has dealt with the liberal bias mainstream media has influenced others not to be so easily pushed around by these bullies. With the Left obsessed with forcing conservatives/Republicans to apologize, Trump refuses to go there. It drives the Left crazy. I love it!

The Left regard apologies as blood in the water to totally destroy, devour and end the campaign of a conservative/Republican.

The Fox News strategy to “get Trump” during the GOP debate was extremely unfortunate. I agree with Mark Levin who said Fox blew a major opportunity. Twenty-four million Americans tuned in to the debate greeted with soap opera questions rather than exposing the horrors Obama has released upon our country and how the GOP contenders plan to fix it.

For example: Seventy percent of the population is unaware of the butchery and black marketing of baby body parts happening behind the walls of Planned Parenthood which is still praised by the Democrats. Why on earth was the debate moderators focused on a feud between Trump and Rosie O’Donnell? Truly unfortunate.

By the way, Bill Clinton was surrounded by affairs and scandals including allegations of rape; none of which came up during past debates.

Ted Cruz understands Trump’s popularity and thinks it is unwise for the GOP to “smack Donald Trump with a stick.” Rather than joining the chorus of those calling patriots idiots for liking Trump, Cruz understands and sympathizes with We the People. Cruz’s message is make me your president and I vow to champion your cause.

Cruz was short-changed during the GOP debate receiving very little time on camera. Still, Cruz’s closing comments caused him to soar in the polls; direct, strong and sincere. I am confident Cruz’s numbers will continue to grow.

I will not judge or be upset with my brother and sister patriots who are high on Trump. Any of our 17 contenders are far superior to a Democrat who will surely continue Obama’s evil transformation of America. My gut tells me Ted Cruz will break the tape finishing first.

Dear Liberals: America Doesn’t Need Your Input on Who’s Conservative

/in , , /by

Are you as tired as I am of media elites attempting to pick our GOP candidates for us?

The media tries this same magic trick during every presidential election where they feign allegiance to the least conservative GOP candidate or candidates and then, when the Democratic nominee has sealed the Party nomination, they quickly, and viciously, turn on their “favorite son” GOP candidate.

Well, they’re up to the same hijinks again. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank recently penned an absurd piece in his regular opinion column where he viciously attacked Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz for having the “temerity” to call a lie a lie, to ask that the Iranians recognize Israel’s right to simply exist, and to defund the monstrous Planned Parenthood. Dana Milbank, the far-left ideologue disguising himself as a mildly credible opinion journalist in a major newspaper, has absolutely no business commenting on who should, or should not, be blacklisted by American conservatives – the very group he despises and makes no effort to otherwise understand the movement.

After reading the Milbank piece I thought the best way to respond to him and the media/Democratic Party complex would be to return the favor and write an open letter to the Left explaining which Democratic candidates should be shunned, and why. If you’re on the Left and reading this and getting angry, now you have a mild understanding of what conservatives go through every day when the left-leaning media lectures us about who the “non-angry, acceptable conservatives” are.

Here goes:

Dear American Left,

How can you support Hillary Clinton for President? Hillary Clinton claims to be a champion of the middle class but she openly advocates for policies that will decimate your quality of life. She supports Obamacare, which has dramatically hiked your insurance premiums through its reliance on community rating and guaranteed issue. She supports an enormous hike in the capital gains tax that will dramatically reduce investment in the economy and, as a result, reduce middle class wages which rely on capital investment to increase economic productivity. And, critically, she fights furiously against school choice and will destroy any chance you have of getting your child a quality education if you live an area with subpar public schools.

And Bernie Sanders? How can you support a man who describes himself as a socialist? Do you realize that Senator Sanders is guided by a political ideology that will steal away from you the freedoms you claim to cherish? Socialism claims to be an ideology of equality but, the so-called “equality” they wish to bring to the United States is an equality of misery because government doesn’t possess the ability to enforce equality of outcomes. As legendary political economist Friedrich Hayek noted in The Constitution of Liberty:

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Finally, how can you support Martin O’Malley? O’Malley is a man with so few convictions that when challenged by left-wing extremists on his seemingly innocuous statement that “all lives matter” at the Netroots Nation conference he APOLOGIZED. O’Malley cowardly walked back his comments by saying “That was a mistake on my part and I meant no disrespect.” Disrespect? For saying “all lives matter”? If this is the kind of character you are seeking in your Democratic nominee for president then your Party is lost at sea with no chance for rescue. I hope you consider my comments on your candidates before entering the voting booth in 2016.

Thanks for your time,

Dan Bongino

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The feature image is by Earl Gibson III | AP Photo.

Thank God Mr. Cruz is in Washington, D.C.

/in , , /by

My email account was on fire, everyone excited about Sen Ted Cruz calling Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. Cruz cited each of Obama’s unprecedented unlawful power grabs and repeals of our freedoms that the GOP promised to block, only to stab us (We the People/Tea Party) in the back. Immediately, I thought, “Thank God Ted Cruz is in Washington.”

Before I go on, I wish to address a guy whom I will call Ned. Whenever I praise a conservative, Ned emails to correct me, claiming the conservative is a deceitful traitor. When I share reasons for optimism, Ned vehemently disagrees, even seeming a bit angry that I would think our efforts could possibly make a difference in America’s corrupt political environment. Ned always sees the glass less than half empty. I guess we need people like Ned to keep us balanced. Although, I am not quite sure about that.

Sure enough, in response to patriots’ giving Cruz rave reviews for speaking truth to Washington power, Ned ripped into Cruz about questionable votes. Folks, I realize Ted Cruz is not perfect. But then, which presidential candidate is? Jesus is not running for president in 2016.

As a member of the Tea Party since it began, Cruz going down the list of GOP betrayals brought back memories. Remember how we fought and worked our butts off to give the GOP the House, then the Senate? We worked to elect Republicans to stop Obama from rolling out the welcome mat to illegals.

Over a million of us showed up in DC to protest Obamacare.

I thought of all the travel miles, funds, blood, sweat and tears sacrificed by Tea Party Americans; patriots who simply want lawful Constitutional government.

I thought about how Obama sent out his liberal mainstream media air force to bomb us with accusations of racism against the first black president; hoping to soften and diminish our ranks. The Tea Party is not racist, nor do we hate anybody.

In his speech, Cruz did two things that were quite remarkable. First – Cruz exposed the good-cop, bad-cop personal and corporate enrichment scam both parties have been playing on the American people. Second – Cruz spoke with unprecedented clarity. He did not say McConnell misspoke or McConnell was disingenuous. Cruz said McConnell lied.

Cruz has been on a roll speaking the truth, making mincemeat of Obama minions and Leftist ideologues. He really exposes DC insider political corruption in his book, “A Time For Truth.”

It was refreshing that when pressed by the liberal bias media, Cruz refused to jump on the destroy Donald Trump bandwagon. This tells me that Cruz has backbone and will not automatically play by the Left’s rules of engagement.

It is fair game for GOP presidential contenders to express their disapproval of Trump’s style and tactics. However, when a GOP presidential contender joins the MSM in its evil attempt to brand Trump a racist for simply addressing illegal immigration, red flags go up regarding the character of that contender.

It tells me the contender will say whatever necessary to win. I call that “soulless” politicking.

Such behavior has the awful stench of what happened in Mississippi. In the primary, Republican Thad Cochran’s camp joined Democrats in branding the Tea Party racist. To beat the Tea Party conservative, Cochran’s people despicably made lying phone calls to black voters saying the Tea Party candidate would turn back the clock on racial progress. This is the kind of deplorable evil divisive totally self-serving politicking Cruz exposes in his book.

The GOP presidential field is rich with honorable contenders. I ask myself the following question.

When I lay my head on my pillow at night which candidate winning the WH will cause me to sleep the most peacefully? Who is most likely to remain true to their promises to We the People; fight to repeal Obamacare, end the invasion of our borders, defend life and traditional values?

Who believes in Conservatism enough to throw a lifeline of inspiration to those drowning in the treacherous deep dark sea of Obama’s welfare state America? Who will pray as the song says, “Lord lift us up where we belong” as Americans?

Currently, I believe that candidate is Sen Ted Cruz.

Realizing the fruitlessness of trying to instill a bit of hope/sunshine into Ned, I delete his emails without opening them. Ned has gotten creative. After lunch the waiter brought the check and my fortune cookie. The message inside said, “Ted Cruz sucks! – Ned” (Just kidding).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Congress Could Face a Government Shutdown This Fall

A California Judge Needs a Lesson in the First Amendment

Mark Levin: If We Still Had A Republic, Kerry And Obama’s Sight-Unseen Iran Side Deals Would Demand Impeachment

Presidential Candidates, Members of Congress, and Governors Call for Military Right-to-Carry

/in , , , /by

Following the murder of four U.S. Marines and a U.S. Navy sailor by a terrorist in Chattanooga, presidential candidates, including former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R), businessman Donald Trump, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker (R), and former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), have called for a change in federal law to allow stateside military personnel to carry firearms for protection. In addition, the governors of Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas have directed the adjutants general of their National Guards to authorize Guardsmen to be armed in their states.

Before the attack in Chattanooga, congressional Armed Services Committee Chairmen Sen. John McCain and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) had been planning to include legislation in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act to clarify an Army post commander’s authority to allow the carrying of personal firearms for protection. Now, numerous other senators and representatives have stated their support for legislation to allow military personnel to be armed for protection of themselves and their fellow troops here at home.

The outpouring of support for allowing military personnel to protect themselves is more than justified by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which included an attack upon the Pentagon, and events related to other military facilities thereafter.  In 2009, a terrorist killed 12 military personnel and one civilian, and wounded 30 others on Fort Hood, Texas. That same year, another attack occurred upon a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, resulting in the death of one soldier and the wounding of another. Over the next two years, law enforcement authorities foiled planned attacks upon military facilities in Baltimore and Seattle. In 2013, 12 people were killed and four were wounded in an attack upon the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard. And only eight months ago, the FBI issued a warning that ISIS was recruiting extremists to attack our military personnel here at home.

Military personnel are effectively prohibited from carrying personal firearms for protection by a Department of Defense Directive of 2011, which states:

Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed…

That directive traces back to another Directive from the early 1990s, which contains similar language.

EDITORS NOTE: We encourage readers to contact their U.S. senators and representatives, to voice their strong support for legislation to allow our military personnel to carry firearms for their protection.

American Voters Now The Greatest Threat To America?

/in , , , /by

Through illegal immigration and so-called refugee resettlement programs, both importing a new breed of American “citizen” and a new crop of voters, the U.S. elections are now heavily influenced by foreign anti-American interests. The voter demographics of our country are being intentionally and purposefully altered. But that may not be the greatest threat to American sovereignty, security and freedom.

Our nation’s Founders did their level best to create a system of self-governance of, by and for the legitimate citizens of the United States, establishing three co-equal branches of the Federal Government, each with their own set of limited duties and authorities necessary to execute those duties. In this extraordinary effort, they installed countless checks and balances to make possible the ongoing protection of all Natural Rights established for the people in our Charters of Freedom.

One of those measures was a set of few, but strict conditions for high political office, an effort to make certain that only True Americans with no foreign entanglements or allegiances would hold the reins of political power in America. A different set of requirements were created for each branch, two chambers of the legislature, the judiciary and the executive branch.

The most powerful political office in our land and maybe in the entire world is the Oval Office, the office of Commander-in-Chief of the entire United States military and national security apparatus. This office has a very specific eligibility requirement unique to this office alone, that of no other but a natural born Citizen.

In a recent online survey, the following question was asked on more than a dozen known “conservative” Facebook (FB) groups….

“Do YOU believe that 14th Amendment “anchor babies” and “undocumented citizens” are “natural born Citizens” eligible for the Oval Office?”

Over 166 members in those FB groups shared the post and approximately 100 members voted in the survey within hours of the post. 100% of the survey respondents answered the question correctly, NO… no one answered YES or I DON’T KNOW… They may not know what natural born Citizen is, but they seem to know what it is not.

This is good news… this means that these people all know that the March 2015 Harvard Law Review essay clearing both Barack Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz for the Oval Office, is total nonsense, based upon 14th Amendment naturalization codes qualifying anchor babies and undocumented citizens for high office on the basis of misused naturalization statutes and cases.

The FB survey did not mention any candidate names. When respondents were simply answering a non-partisan question pertaining to who is not a natural born Citizen, they were able to get the answer correct with 100% accuracy.

However, some of those same respondents are supporting either an “anchor baby” or an “undocumented citizen” for the 2016 GOP nomination, without connecting the dots between the survey they had just answered and the candidates they support.

An anchor baby is a child born in the United States to foreign parents. Misuses of our immigration and naturalization statutes allow that child to be a U.S. “citizen at birth” under the 14th Amendment –  then becoming an anchor under which the parents and other family members can take a shortcut to U.S. citizenship by attaching to the anchor baby. These are “naturalized citizens” and their citizenship is based solely upon 14th Amendment naturalization statutes….

This is the condition of 2016 GOP candidate Marco Rubio, who was born in Florida to two Cuban citizen parents who did not become naturalized citizens of the United States until years after Marco’s birth. Marco Rubio was born Cuban, an anchor baby citizen of the USA only under 14th Amendment naturalization codes. He is not a natural born Citizen of the United States.

Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada and registered at that time as a native born citizen of Canada at birth. This fact is evidenced by the release of his Canadian birth record and his May 14, 2014 renouncing of his Canadian citizenship. These two very public events prove that Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth and remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship on May 14, 2014.

The claim has been made that Ted Cruz is a natural born Citizen of the United States, eligible for the Oval Office, despite these known facts. These claims are again, being made on the basis of misused 14th Amendment naturalization statutes which may allow his mother to confer naturalized U.S. citizenship to Ted, under certain conditions for doing so.

The record shows that Ted’s mother did not register him as a “U.S. Citizen born abroad” in Calgary, but rather as only a native born citizen of Canada at birth. The record also shows that Ted Cruz remained a legal citizen of Canada until May 14, 2014, when he renounced that citizenship.

To date, no records of Ted Cruz ever being registered in the United States as a citizen of any kind have been released or found. A “citizen” without any authenticated documentation is by definition, an “undocumented citizen.” The legal term for undocumented citizen is “illegal alien” or “resident alien,” one who resides in the United States with no known authenticated documentation of their true citizenship status.

In fact, the term “undocumented citizen” is an oxymoron…. According to our immigration and naturalization laws, if one is not documented, they are not a citizen. They are a “resident alien.” In their efforts to collect taxes from anywhere they can, the I.R.S. created numerous new “classes of citizens” in order to collect taxes from people in our country illegally and without any other documentation.

As of this writing, Ted Cruz is a “resident alien” of the United States, not a natural born Citizen of the United States. That’s what our laws and Ted’s personal documentation prove.

When the FB survey asked “conservatives” if anchor babies or undocumented citizens are natural born Citizens eligible for the Oval Office, they answered NO with 100% accuracy. But when you point out that Marco Rubio is nothing more than an anchor baby or that Ted Cruz is anundocumented resident alien, their opinions begin to shift, sometimes violently.

Once the political agenda of the respondent enters the discussion, the simple truth they once knew is replaced by micro debate arguments that allow them to avoid reality by splitting hairs and relying on “legal expert opinions” that serve their agenda, regardless of fundamentally knowing it is all smoke and mirrors…

Despite knowing that a 14th Amendment citizen is a naturalized citizen ineligible for office, they still use 14th Amendment arguments to qualify their candidate of choice.

Americans are accustomed to people with unbridled political ambitions saying anything they have to in pursuit of that power. What’s new here is the willingness of American voters to go along with it.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have received numerous fund-raising emails that I thought came from the Ted Cruz 2016 campaign. In the last day or two, I have received the same fund-raising emails for Marco Rubio – also assuming those emails were sent by his campaign.

But in fact, both of those fund-raising efforts for Cruz and Rubio came from the same source, the National Tea Party. An operation originally established to fight for restoration of Constitutional Government now finds itself squarely in the middle of undermining the Rule of Constitutional Law, and millions of unsuspecting Americans are following their lead.

This is what makes Americans the greatest threat to America… it comes down to just two factors…

  1. The human tendency to follow that which we want to be true, despite knowing what is true.
  2. The tendency to ignore reality in favor of a political fantasy.

Neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio is a natural born Citizen of the United States. A letter to Ted Cruz dated December 2013 literally begged Ted not to force his fraudulent condition into the daylight by running for President. He never answered that letter… His political ambitions proved to be much more powerful than his desire to simply do right.

Still, the real problem remains the average American voter… who despite knowing the truth, side with the lie believing the political end will justify the unconstitutional means.

If natural born Citizen no longer matters to the average voter, then nothing else in the Charters of Freedom matters, because you cannot protect the Constitutional Republic without preventing foreign entities from holding the most powerful office in our land.

Two of the people who should have stopped Obama from the U.S. Senate are instead, trying to ride his coattails of fraud to the Oval Office themselves…. Both are highly trained lawyers, so there is no claiming ignorance of the law. And these two have the backing of the National Tea Party…. Global governance only works in America once anyone from anywhere in the world can be Commander-in-Chief….

The same group will soon announce that Ben Carson is entering the race and they are raising money for all of these candidates…. Only a fool would give them a penny for any of them…. Only to wait to see how the Tea Party uses their money to drive the final nail in the coffin of the United States.

These groups are not just watching the end of the American presidency, they are participating in it… they are leading it.

2016 GOP Hopefuls Set To Speak At Salem Media Group’s RedState Gathering In August

/in , , , /by

CAMARILLO, Calif./PRNewswire/ — Erick Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of Salem Media Group’s (NASDAQ: SALM) RedState.com, announced on Tuesday the first speaker lineup for the 2015 RedState Gathering. Governor Scott Walker, Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina and Senator Marco Rubio have all confirmed they will speak at the event.

In a slight change of tradition, this year’s RedState Gathering will be themed “Vision 2020.”

“Though I am loathe to ever suggest a topic for speakers, I have asked each of the 2016 candidates to focus on one thing: I’d like them to present their 2020 vision for what the nation should look like after their first four years,” Erickson said. “We need to know what they see as the areas that need fixing and how their fixes will reshape the country.

Jonathan Garthwaite, Salem Vice President and General Manager of Townhall Media (under which RedState operates) said, “RedState Gathering attendees are some of the hardest working conservative activists online and door-to-door who have pushed hundreds of conservative candidates to the top. There is no better place than the Gathering for the presidential candidates to come to and give their vision for America.”

The RedState Gathering will take place at the Intercontinental Buckhead Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, August 6-9, 2015. In addition to a majority of the GOP presidential field, invitations have also been extended to members of Congress and other local and state elected officials. The weekend will kick-off on Thursday with a discussion between Erick Ericksonr and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and wind down with a new event on Saturday evening called the RedState Tailgate, featuring a surprise guest speaker.

Registrations to attend the RedState Gathering are currently open. To register or for additional information, please visit RedStateGathering.com. The early bird registration fee of $249 expires May 23rd.

ABOUT SALEM MEDIA GROUP:

Salem Media Group is America’s leading Christian and conservative multi-media corporation, with media properties comprising radio, digital media and book, magazine and newsletter publishing.  Each day Salem serves a loyal and dedicated audience of listeners and readers numbering in the millions nationally.  With its unique programming focus, Salem provides compelling content, fresh commentary and relevant information from some of the most respected figures across the media landscape.

The company, through its Salem Radio Group, is the largest commercial U.S. radio broadcasting company providing Christian and conservative programming.  Salem owns and operates 110 local radio stations, with 65 stations in the top 25 media markets.  Salem Radio Network (“SRN”) is a full-service national radio network, with nationally syndicated programs comprising Christian teaching and talk, conservative talk, news, and music.  SRN is home to many industry-leading hosts including: Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager and Eric Metaxas.

Salem New Media is a powerful source of Christian and conservative themed news, analysis, and commentary.  Salem’s Christian sites include: Christianity.com®, BibleStudyTools.com, GodTube.com, GodVine.com,WorshipHouseMedia.com and OnePlace.com. Considered by many to be a consolidation of the conservative news and opinion sector’s most influential brands, Salem’s conservative sites include Red State.com, Townhall.com®, HotAir.com, Twitchy.com,  BearingArms.com and Human Events.com .

Salem’s Regnery Publishing unit, with a 65-year history, remains the nation’s leading publisher of conservative books.  Having published many of the seminal works of the early conservative movement, Regnery today continues as the dominant publisher in the conservative space, with leading authors including: Ann Coulter, Dinesh D’Souza, Newt Gingrich, David Limbaugh, Ed Klein and Mark Steyn. Salem’s book publishing business also includes Xulon Press™, a leading provider of self-publishing services for Christian and conservative authors.

Salem Publishing™ publishes Christian and conservative magazines including Homecoming®, YouthWorker Journal™, The Singing News, and Preaching.

Salem Media Group also owns Eagle Financial Publications and Eagle Wellness. Eagle Financial Publications provide market analysis and specific investment advice for individual investors from financial commentators Mark Skousen, Nicholas Vardy, Chris Versace, Bryan Perry and Doug Fabian. Eagle Wellness provides practical health advice and is a trusted source for nutritional supplements from one of the country’s leading complementary health physicians.

RELATED VIDEO: A new poll in New Hampshire puts Rand Paul and Scott Walker in first place among GOP candidates in the Granite State. Hillary Clinton still leads among Democrats, but she is showing some weakness. Hear why.

Why Natural Born Citizen is Non-Negotiable

/in , , , , /by

Not so long ago, Americans placed little faith and trust in ambulance chasers (a.k.a. lawyers) or politicians, and wisely so according to our Founders who had no faith or trust in any person seeking power and dominion over others. Now, too many Americans place all of their faith in people seeking power and dominion over others, and even worse, a class of people who have already proven most dangerous to the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law… the lawyer law-makers…

Ever since Barack Obama stole the show at the Kerry Convention in 2004 and rocketed from total obscurity to the most powerful political office in our land four years later, the subject of Article II requirements for the Oval Office has been a subject of great debate, all over three simple words, natural born Citizen (NBC), aka “True Citizen.”

Where did it come from, what does it mean, why did our Founders limit access to only two political offices in our nation to no one other than a natural born Citizen, and what do we do now that we know Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States? These questions have been the source of much political debate, confusion and anxiety, now threatening the GOP as a result of numerous potential 2016 GOP candidates also failing to meet the requirement.

Some of the most blatantly insane arguments have been floated…

“Well, the constitution does not provide a definition for the term”… which is of course true, since the U.S. Constitution provides no definition for any word found in the document.

“Our naturalization laws define natural born Citizen” (when in fact our naturalization laws only pertain to naturalized citizens, immigrants seeking basic citizen rights from congress).

“The courts will have to tell us what the term means”… despite knowing that it is the courts that created terms of art like “undocumented citizen” (a.k.a. illegal alien) and “Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and even enemy combatants” (while denying American citizen any constitutional protection of natural rights at all) and “social justice” (the opposite of real justice under Constitutional Law).

Others rely upon “legal scholars” also known as lawyers of the political class in line for political appointments and eager to please those in positions to help them ascend to those lofty positions in the judiciary, ignoring the reality that these scholars have powerful political motivations for the opinions they write, and that no opinion has the power to amend the U.S. Constitution except by amendment process.

The simple truth is that Article II of the U.S. Constitution has only been amended once in U.S. history, by Amendment XII extending the requirements for President to the Vice President as well. It has not been otherwise amended, despite at least eight failed attempts by Congress to eliminate the natural born requirement for high office. Further, no amendment has ever mentioned, changed or in any way altered the original meaning of natural born Citizen as intended by our Founders and ratified by all fifty states.

So, the term natural born Citizen means the same today as it did in 1787 when the Founders placed that requirement in Article II… unless you buy into the notion that naturalization statutes or amendments, or scholarly legal arguments carry with them the legal force to amend the constitution – in which case, the term has no meaning at all, and neither does anything else in our Founding documents.

Before Barack Obama arrived on the scene, the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no verifiable past, not too many Americans ever thought about the term. Most Americans assumed that no one would ever be bold enough to attempt such a massive fraud by falsely claiming natural born eligibility, and they assumed that if anyone ever did make such an attempt, our strict election laws, free press and national security agency oversight would surely catch it, expose it and stop it from happening. These assumptions have proven to be wrong… in fact, such attempts are now becoming common place. Barack was the first, but now there are others…

Most Americans have entered the discussion from a purely political purpose, attempting to either qualify their political messiah of choice, or disqualify another. But the natural born Citizen concept is actually far more important to our society than merely who can and cannot hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

I was recently asked a question I have been asked literally thousands of times since I started writing on the subject, how do I know for sure what the Founders meant by natural born Citizen?

How do we know what any word or phrase means? Most people reach to their book shelf and grab a dictionary when they want to know the true definition of a word of phrase. Most people have never come upon a word or phrase that they needed a lawyer, or a court, or anything more than a dictionary to properly interpret… I find this to be the case here as well.

People don’t have any trouble understanding the word “born” (the moment of birth) or the word “citizen” (a legal member of a society). The word people seem to struggle with is “natural.”

At this moment, a collective effort is underway to claim that the following three words are synonymous… natural – native – naturalized…. Which would make anyone eligible for the Oval Office, including the courts new citizen class the “undocumented citizen.”

People trying to disqualify John McCain in 2008 decided that natural and native are synonymous terms and people now trying to qualify Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are claiming that natural, native and naturalized are all synonymous terms of art. Before they can eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II, they must first make the term ambiguous, potentially having more than one meaning… of course…

Any dictionary will disagree with these claims…

Naturalized – “to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.”

Native – “being the place or environment in which a person was born.”

Natural – “existing in or formed by nature.”

Clearly, these three words have three very different definitions and meanings, only one of which is related to the Constitutional requirement for the Oval Office… “Natural.”

As a simple dictionary review confirms, these three words are in no way synonymous. It is not possible for the following three terms to be synonymous, natural born, native born and naturalized. Yet, many will continue to make the false claim that they are… because they believe these claims to suit their political agenda of the moment.

Many know exactly what natural born Citizen means, and still, for political expediency, they refuse to stand on this truth. Just this morning another “political commentator” wrote me this…

“NATIVE BORN CITIZENS ARE DIFFERENT… .. I see the reference to the father’s citizenship alone as determinING the birthright of the child… BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT AINT GONNA FLY today NO MORE THAN DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU WILL ALIENATE HALF THE COUNTRY WITH SUCH NONSENSE” – Scott Rohter (exactly as sent to me, yelling caps and all)

As you can see, Mr. Rohter first confirms that he is aware of the truth, before shifting to all CAPS to scream his refusal to stick to the truth, referring to that truth as “nonsense” because that truth will offend some who do not like this truth. It is this practice which has made the NBC term appear “ambiguous,” opening the door for the lawyer law-making political class to enter the discussion with new invented definitions of the term.

As Mr. Rohter confirmed in our exchange, we agree on 99% of the issues… unfortunately, the 1% we disagree on is the most important – of critical importance, especially at this moment in history, when every American must deal only in truth. Mr. Rohter is not alone in his position. Numerous others have made the same false claims for exactly the same reasons.

The Harvard Lawyers are intentionally lying to the people when claiming NBC is synonymous with naturalized citizen at birth. But people like Rohter are also intentionally lying to the people for their set of political reasons. Both are responsible for allowing unconstitutional candidates to seek and hold the most powerful office in our land, that of Commander-in-Chief.

The term natural born Citizen is based on historical concepts as old as all recorded time. If you want to know where and why the Founders borrowed the term for Article II, I cover that in this piece… and if you want to know the true historical definition of the term, I cover that in this piece.

Natural born Citizen is a term based in biblical teachings based upon the concepts of a patriarchal society wherein in the Father is the head of the family unit. The intentional destruction of the family unit has greatly complicated the discussion with scholarly changes in the definition of words like marriage, family and shifting gender roles forced by liberal restructuring of American society, also for political purposes.

14th Naturalization Amendment terms like “citizen at birth” and “birthright citizenship” have been intentionally been tossed into the mix to further complicate the understanding of three basic English words defined in every English dictionary. The purpose of all these efforts is to eliminate the NBC requirement for office by simply redefining the term. But that is not the only purpose…

Setting politics aside for a moment, natural born Citizenship is the inalienable natural right of every child to inherit the country of their natural birth father upon birth, not only due to no application of man-made statute or legal opinions, but inalienable by these means.

When people begin to play with definitions, it is an overt effort to alter our Founding principles and values and Constitutional protections of all inalienable Natural Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a much larger issue than who can or cannot occupy the Oval Office, although this is indeed an issue paramount to the sovereignty and security of these United States.

Contrary to the intentional mis-education of American society, we do not enjoy “constitutional rights.” We have long enjoyed “constitutionally protected Natural Rights.”

Beginning in 2008, when folks were trying to disqualify John McCain, born the son of American parentage stationed abroad in Panama on the service of our country with the U.S. Navy, some plucked a single sentence from the proper source of the Founders NBC term, The Law of Nations by Vattel, as if they believe that it was unnecessary for Vattel to take great care to write an entire chapter on the subject, when a single sentence says it all.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

As already demonstrated above, natives and naturals are in fact two different things, which confirms that the structure of this single sentence is not the definition of any one thing, but rather a general statement about more than one thing… Reference to “parents” does not mean both parents within the family unit, but rather all citizen family units which bear “citizen” children.

Why did these individuals not pluck any of the following single sentences from Vattel, appearing in the same paragraph Section 212 of Chapter XIX of the Law of Nations?

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Or this one – “as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Or this one – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

Or even this one – “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

When trying to sum up natural born Citizen using a single sentence from Vattel, any of the four sentences above would be accurate. So, why didn’t the people who cherry-picked the unrelated general sentence pluck any of these other single sentences from the same paragraph?

There are two reasons… first, the truth did not suit the political agenda, which was to disqualify John McCain on the basis that although he was born to a citizen father (and mother), he was born in Panama, not on U.S. soil – and second, because the progressive shifting definitions of marriage and family, along with gender roles lead many to believe that the original definition and Founders intent of the term are antiquated and outdated. It leads many to falsely think it is some offense to women’s rights…

The Citizenship Act of 1934 pertaining only to “naturalized citizenship” is the cornerstone of today’s effort to destroy the NBC term and thereby eliminate the requirement from Article II. FDR’s Naturalization Act was the result of an international treaty from a Pan American conference of December 26, 1933, essentially agreeing that there should be no distinction between the sexes as it related to nationality under legislative processes. Of course, this pertained only to “naturalized citizenship” under congressional naturalization legislation.

Still, it has since been improperly used to claim that citizenship and even natural born Citizenship can pass from either Father or Mother, as a matter of alleged gender equality. Yet, this claim pertains only to naturalized citizenship, which is mutually exclusive of natural born Citizenship.

As all governmental power in the United States is limited in nature and derived from the people, nothing beyond what which was ratified by the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under the consent of the people. The people have not consented to any alterations of Article II requirements for high office, so no alterations have been legally made.

Why natural born Citizen is non-negotiable

Much more than a political ambition or agenda is at stake here… The Natural Right of every child to inherit the condition of their birth family, specifically that of the Father (patriarch), the head of the family, is a constitutionally protected Natural Right.

Americans must understand that everything our Founders created was based upon inalienable Natural Rights, not man-made laws via legislative process or judicial review. When anyone begins to mess around with natural born, they are in fact messing around the Natural Law and all Natural Rights, the cornerstone of our Founders creation and any form of freedom and liberty.

If a child born to an American Father is stripped of their Natural Right to inherit the country of their Father, what other Natural Rights can be stripped from the child or the parent by mere man-made statute, court interpretation or Harvard Law Review? The answer is all of them…

In my personal opinion, the three most important words in all of the U.S. Constitution are natural born Citizen… because all Natural Rights flow through this patriarchal social concept and the sovereignty and security of our Constitutional Republic are protected from foreign invasion at the highest level by these three simple words, natural born Citizen.

Once any citizen of any type, by any means, including “undocumented citizens” can occupy the Oval Office, then any foreign entity can occupy that office, controlling the future of this nation and form of freedom and liberty itself as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force on earth.

Mere momentary political interest is not enough reason to let everything die…

I pray that Americans will cease to be so blind and foolish…. quickly!

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Repression on the Question of What is a “natural born Citizen?”

Richard Viguerie: Cruz is First Top-Tier Movement Conservative Candidate Since Reagan

/in , , , /by

MANASSAS, Va., March 23, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — After today’s official announcement that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is running for president, Richard Viguerie says that changes everything in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Ted Cruz isn’t running for Vice President or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Jeb Bush administration.

Every Republican candidate for president will have to move to significantly to the right, starting with Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, and define their position on amnesty for illegal aliens, on fighting and winning the war radical Islam has declared on America, on spending, the deficit and the debt, and on repealing Obamacare, against the positions Ted Cruz will talk about and campaign on in the coming months.

They will all have to move right to respond to Cruz, or be left behind by a grassroots conservative electorate fed-up with Republican candidates who are merely principle-free messengers for an out of touch Washington elite.

Ted Cruz’s base is the conservative movement, and although other Republican presidential candidates since Ronald Reagan, such as Gary Bauer and Michelle Bachmann, looked to movement conservatives for their support, they were never able to expand beyond their starting base of support into the top-tier of candidates.

Ted Cruz is the first top-tier movement conservative candidate since Reagan for three reasons that separate him immediately from the rest of the Republican pack.

First, is his ability to unite all three elements of the old Reagan coalition; national defense conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives with the new fourth leg of the 21st century’s winning conservative coalition – the constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party movement.

Others, such as Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal and Rand Paul may have some appeal to elements of that coalition, but no one unites it the way Ted Cruz does.

Second, is Ted Cruz’s understanding of and almost spiritual bond with America’s country class – the voters outside the Beltway who have looked with alarm at Obama’s fundamental transformation of America and seen not a spending bill to be negotiated or a deal to be cut, as the Republican establishment does, but an existential threat to American exceptionalism and the future of constitutional government that must be resisted at every turn.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, are Ted Cruz’s zest for the battle of ideas between conservatives and progressives in both political parties and his intellectual gifts for fighting it.

The Ted Cruz campaign is planned as a great conservative crusade to, as he put it in his compelling announcement speech at Liberty University, reignite the promise of America.

And this means with Ted Cruz in the race voters will have a clear choice between policy grounded in the thought of the modern conservative movement and the Washington deal-making that has often corrupted Republican campaigns of the recent past.

Today, everything in American politics changed, and that tremor you felt at midday was the shiver in the DC establishment as millions of conservatives across America respond to Ted Cruz and said in unison, we’ve found our leader and “We demand our Liberty.”

Who is Natural Born, Who is Not?

/in , , , /by

Now that the Iowa Freedom Summit has officially kicked off the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, it’s time that, as a matter of party policy, Republicans agreed on who is a natural born citizen and who is not.  Three conservatives… Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)… are prominently mentioned as potential candidates.  But the question arises, are they eligible to serve?  And if not, are conservatives and Republicans willing to turn their backs on the U.S. Constitution, cloaking themselves in the specious argument that, if the Democrats could get away with it for eight years, why shouldn’t they?  In other words, are Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio supporters willing to make the case that two wrongs make a right… the Constitution be damned?

If Republicans wish to avoid embarrassment and a potential constitutional crisis midway through a presidential campaign, party leaders would be well-advised to resolve the question before the issue blows up in their collective faces.  By doing so, they can kill two birds with one stone: 1) they can prove to the American people that, unlike Democrats, Republicans still honor the words and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) they can permanently stain the Obama legacy by shining the light of day on his ineligibility… eight years too late, but better late than never.

Some Republicans may be foolish enough to think that Democrats, after nominating and electing  an ineligible candidate in 2008 and again in 2012, would hesitate to make a political issue out of the “natural born” status of Cruz, Jindal, or Rubio.  Those who make that assumption simply don’t know Democrats.  As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld remarked in his book, Rumsfeld’s Rules, “Never assume the other guy would never do something you would never do.”

When the Founders drafted Article II of the U.S. Constitution, they were highly concerned that the chief executive of the United States should not, under any circumstance, be even remotely subject to or encumbered by foreign influences.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, sent a letter to General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, expressing his concern over the prospect that an individual with some level of potential foreign allegiance, however remote, might be elected to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy.  He wrote: “Permit me to hint whether it would 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 commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (italics added).”

On March 12, 1788, in Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the widely held fear of foreign influence on the president of the United States.  He wrote, “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy (presidency) of the Union?

It should be noted that the Framers did not require the president and vice president to be devoid of all friends and acquaintances in foreign lands; they did not choose to limit the presidency and the vice presidency only to those without living relatives in foreign lands; nor did they limit the presidency and the vice presidency only to those without material offshore assets.  But they did produce language in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring that all candidates for president and vice president must be “natural BORN.”

Accordingly, the final product of the Constitutional Convention contained the following language, unchanged and unchallenged in the past 227 years.  Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution reads as follows: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

As the Constitution was being drafted, southern Democrats demanded, as a means of increasing their representation in the U.S. Congress, a provision that allowed each slave to be counted as three-fifths of a person.  However, nearly a century later, the states ratified the 14th Amendment, a Republican-sponsored proposal granting full citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil.

While the amendment was designed to give full citizenship to emancipated slaves, the authors could not have foreseen an age in which international travel would be so commonplace that expectant foreign women could travel to the U.S. just to have their babies born on U.S. soil, creating a class of citizens known as “anchor babies.”  Had they been able to predict the future, they would likely have limited the amendment to full time legal residents of the United States, almost all of whom were emancipated slaves.

The 14th Amendment does not confer, nor was it ever intended to confer, “natural born” status on children of emancipated slaves or on today’s “anchor babies” because, like our first seven presidents… Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson… none of whom were “natural born” citizens, those infants were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth.  And while none of our first seven presidents were natural born, all were “citizens” on the day the Constitution was ratified and were “grandfathered” under the phrase, “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”    

Most Obama apologists, while insisting that Obama is a “natural born” citizen, even though he was born to an American mother and a Kenyan father, will agree that Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, is not a “natural born” citizen because he was born in Austria to Austrian parents and became a “naturalized” citizen after emigrating to the U.S.

When an alien seeks to become a naturalized citizen, he/she must demonstrate that they have been of good moral character for the statutory period prior to filing for naturalization.  Then,

upon being found suitable for U.S. citizenship, applicants must swear the following oath:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

As a “citizen of Kenya by birth,” under terms of the August 4, 2010 Kenyan constitution, Barack Obama has failed to renounce his Kenyan citizenship and is required to obey the laws of Kenya whenever he happens to visit that country.  Therefore, he has not “absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty…”  Nor has he shown himself to be a man of good moral character.

Any investigation into who is natural born and who is not, must have as its starting point, a realization that there are only two jobs in the entire United States, public sector or private sector, that require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those who are naturalized citizens or regular citizens can serve in state and local office, in state courts, in the U.S. Congress, and in the federal courts.  They are even eligible to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but they may not serve as president or vice president of the United States.

The Framers obviously intended the qualifications for president and vice president to be far and above the qualifications for any other office in the land.  As such, those who insist that the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are synonymous have an obligation to explain to the rest of us exactly what they see as the exclusivity factor that make eligibility requirements for president and vice president different from those of all other offices.

The acid test for those who claim natural born citizenship involves two factors, and two factors alone.  The first is “place” and the other is “parentage.”  Individuals born in a foreign land, to alien parents, can become “naturalized,” but never “natural born” citizens; “anchor babies” born to one or more non-citizen parents on U.S. soil can be “citizens,” but never “natural born” citizens; and those born anywhere on Earth to one American citizen and one who is not, can be American “citizens” with dual nationality, but never “natural born” citizens.

In January 2009 and again in January 2013, it was the obligation of congressional Republicans to question Barack Obama’s eligibility when they met in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College, but they lacked the courage to do so.  Nor did they have the courage or the political will to hold public hearings on the question.  Now they have the opportunity to shine the light of day on the question of Obama’s ineligibility by openly questioning the eligibility of three Republicans.  Such hearings will show that, in terms of eligibility for the highest office in the land, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are all “birds of a feather.”

Obama’s Eligibility – The Final Word

/in , , /by

In recent days I have been drawn into yet another debate over presidential eligibility, as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Given that Barack Obama has occupied the Oval Office illegally for more than five years, without so much as a whimper of protest from most American voters or the mainstream media, some may feel that any further discussion of this matter may be akin to “beating a dead horse.” Nevertheless, if we insist on referring to ourselves as a constitutional republic, and if we continue to insist that we honor constitutional principles and the rule of law, then we have no choice but to understand precisely what the Founders intended when they drafted our governing document in 1787.

What generated my recent exchange on the subject of presidential eligibility was an article in the January 31, 2014 edition of pegAlert, the newsletter of the Pennsylvania Business Council.  The article in question was titled, “SANTORUM PREPPING FOR ANOTHER RUN IN 2016.”

In response, I asked the question, “Who keeps propping up Santorum’s ambitions … other than Rick Santorum?  Unless I’m wrong, his father was still an Italian citizen when he was born.  That makes him ineligible for the presidency.”  To which a representative of the Business Council replied, “That might be so, but Santorum was born in the USA so that makes him a citizen.”

To that nonsensical assertion I replied, “… If Santorum was born in the US, which I assume he was, that does make him a ‘citizen.’  But that’s not what is at issue.  What is at issue is his status as a ‘natural born’ citizen, which he must be if he wants to run for president.  In order for him to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, both of his parents must have been US citizens.  If Santorum’s father was still an Italian citizen when he was born, then he is not a ‘natural born’ citizen…”

The final response from the Pennsylvania Business Council brought us straight to the nub of the issue.  The reply read, “Under (that) definition, none of our initial 6 or 7 presidents, would have qualified.”  Bingo!!  Without even trying, he inadvertently proved my point.

Once again I found myself confronted face-to-face with the harebrained notion that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are synonymous… that to be a “citizen” equates to being a “natural born” citizen.  That simply is not true.  One would think that simple intellectual curiosity would lead those who share that mistaken belief to question why the Founders found it necessary to modify the phrase, “No person except a natural born Citizen,” with the phrase, “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Even the most unthinking and uneducated among us must agree that the use of the word “or” requires an implicit understanding that those who would seek the presidency had to be either “natural born citizens,” or “citizens of the United States” on the day that the Constitution became the law of the land.

On the day that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, every citizen of the thirteen original colonies became citizens of a new nation, the United States of America.  And the very first child born to newly-minted US citizens on July 4, 1776, before the ink was dry on John Hancock’s signature, became the nation’s very first “natural born” citizen.

The Constitution required that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age.  There were a great many men who met those two criteria, but the country needed a president and the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.  To solve that problem, the Framers added a grandfather clause, making it possible for newly-minted US citizens, none of them “natural born,” to serve as president.  This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age thirty-five.

George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen,” but not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Massachusetts on October 30, 1735, forty-one years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen” because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.

Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Virginia on April 13, 1743, thirty-three years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen” because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia on March 16, 1751, twenty-five years before the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia on April 28, 1758, eighteen years before the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts on July 11, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina on March 15, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; were all “citizens” because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.

However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence.  Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

What a great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americans refuse to accept is the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  However, under Chapter VI, Sec. 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution of December 12, 1963, Kenyan Independence Day, Obama lost his British citizenship on August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday.  However, his eligibility status is now complicated by the fact that, under Chapter 3, Section 14 of a revised Kenyan Constitution, adopted on August 4, 2010, he became a citizen of Kenya “by birth” and is required to obey the laws of Kenya, should he ever set foot in that country during or after his stay in the White House.

The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation.  Barack Obama provides, if nothing else, a definitive example of why the Founders insisted that the president must be a “natural born” citizen, untainted by any hint of foreign allegiances.

Although Democrats have successfully defended Obama’s illegal presidency, based largely on the fact that he is a black man, insulated from the rule of law by the color of his skin, we must insist that constitutional mandates apply equally to presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans.  This means, of course, that conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Nicki Haley (R-SC), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)… all born to one or more non-US citizen parents… are not natural born citizens and must be eliminated from consideration for the 2016 GOP nomination.

In the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, a man of Barack Obama’s background and qualifications would have received zero consideration for the presidency.  Without question, he would have been declared ineligible.  Yet, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional criteria for the presidency have not changed one iota since 1787, millions of Americans today insist that he is eligible for the office.  By what tortured reasoning, what conceivable standard, they won’t say.

Liberals and Democrats being what they are, we can always count on them to expect to have things both ways.  But conservatives and Republicans believe in constitutional principles and the rule of law and we simply cannot allow the bandwagon-riders in our party to circumvent the Constitution.  So, sorry, Ted, Nicki, Bobby, Marco, and Rick… we love you all and you’re a great credit to our country, but you just can’t play in our presidential sandbox.

Glenn Beck hammers national “toxic political system”

/in , , , /by

Pitchfork Patriots reports, “Glenn Beck skewered the GOP while delivering the keynote address at a local Texas GOP’s Reagan Day dinner, contending the Republican Party hasn’t demonstrated through action that it actually believes the principles it espouses.”

“He then likened the current situation in Washington, D.C. to the nuclear disaster that occurred decades ago at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Beck offered the solution he said was employed to end that catastrophe as a way to repair our toxic political system,” notes Pitchfork Patriots.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/k9uOtYGLhHo[/youtube]

Pitchfork Patriots writes:

Beck previously warned Republicans that if they embrace establishment politicians such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the party would eventually cease to exist.

“If the GOP wants to not just win, if the GOP expects to survive — if you embrace John McCain and John Boehner it will not happen,” he said. “If you embrace the Mike Lees and the Ted Cruzes, you win big time.”

Read more.

Cruz: Obama Should Apologize to Nation in State of the Union

/in , , , , /by

By Andrew Johnson.

With the bungled launch of HealthCare.gov and the Affordable Care Act causing millions to lose their health-care coverage, Ted Cruz urged the president to use Tuesday’s State of the Union address to apologize to the American people.

“For the State of the Union, one of the things President Obama really ought to do is look in the TV camera and say to the over 5 million Americans all across this country who’ve had their health insurance canceled because of Obamacare, to look in the camera and say, ‘I’m sorry — I told you if you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep it…’”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/oD7oDpFh5WY[/youtube]