Both Born Outside the USA to U.S. Citizen Mother with a Non-U.S. Citizen Father — If Winston Churchill Was Not Even a Citizen of the United States, How Can Ted Cruz Be Its Natural Born Citizen? | by Atty Mario Apuzzo
. ” … Churchill was born in Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England, on November 30, 1874, to Lady Randolph Churchill (née Jennie Jerome), who was born in the United States, and to Lord Randolph Churchill, a British citizens. Hence, Churchill was like Cruz born out of the United States to what Cruz would consider a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. … “
. ” … I will leave you with these quotes from Churchill himself. “I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my father’s marriage.” (1963) http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/62-finest-hour-151/1838–wit-and-wisdom-reflections-on-america . Some in the press wondered if Churchill, who was born to a U.S. citizen mother, would ever consider running for U.S. president. When asked by a reporter in 1932 on running for President of the United States, he correctly and honestly responded: “There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter.” The Definitive Wit of Winston Churchill 18 (ed. Richard M. Langworth 2009). But then that’s Winston Churchill, not Ted Cruz. … “
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay wrote with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, “Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery,” J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay’s “History of the American Revolution” in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,” Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
View and get the Maricopa County AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse Investigative Reports directly from their website about Obama’s forged ID docs: http://www.mcsoccp.org/joomla/
A warning from the past — some conspiracies are very real and are also large and well organized and in process for a long time. Such is the nature of old-school KGB and SDS Communist activities, and more recently Marxist-Fascist groups temporarily allied with Radical Political Islamist activities, in the USA. My enemy’s enemy is my friend is the old adage. And to the Marxist and Islamist a strong USA is the enemy. The target and goal of the seditious political conspiracy we are currently faced with is to destroy our U.S. Constitution, our Republic, our culture, and dramatically weaken our military. Remember this quote from history. But when reading it today substitute Marxist-Facist or Islamist for the current threats we face: “We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism [anti-American Marxist-Leninist-Fascism allied against us with Radical Political Islam] are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. … The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.” Quote by: J. Edgar Hoover former FBI director. Source: Elks Magazine (August 1956). His message applies today equally as well as it did when he stated it in 1956.
Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like Defacto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President
“Soon, we will see various presidential candidates debate each other for the right to win their party’s nomination for President and ultimately to win the people’s and Electoral College’s vote for that Office. The organizations that will be sponsoring these presidential debates, Commission on Presidential Debates, Fox News, Fox Business Network, Reagan Library Foundation, Salem Media Group, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Telemundo, and National Review, in keeping with their bylaws, should not allow any person who is not constitutionally eligible for that office to debate. Allowing constitutionally ineligible candidates to debate will only give the false impression to the American people that such persons are constitutionally eligible to be elected President. This result is more damaging to the Constitution and the rule of law, given that the federal courts refused to get involved in the question of whether de facto President Barack Obama is an Article II natural born citizen. There has been mentioned in the news of some individuals who will be vying for the Office of President. These are Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal. But these individuals, like Obama, are not natural born citizens and hence not eligible to be elected President. They should therefore not be allowed to debate. Allow me to explain.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that for those born before the adoption of the Constitution, having satisfied the 35 years age and 14 years residency requirements, being a “citizen” of the United States was sufficient to be eligible to be President. It also provides that for those born after the adoption, only a “natural born citizen” of the United States is eligible to be President. So, with presidential eligibility under Article II, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, we are looking to define a natural born citizen, not a citizen. We can also see from this constitutional scheme that in the United States there are only “citizens” or “natural born citizens” and that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.
The Framers used the natural born citizen clause to assure that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military would be born citizens of and in allegiance with only the United States from the moment of birth and throughout their lives. They concluded that such a person would be one to least have sympathies for some foreign power or influence which could result in conflict of interests which could harm the United States and its people. … “
Comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret): Reporters need to ask people mentioned as Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates the correct question. Not are you a “Citizen” but per the presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution, are you a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
One cannot ignore a word or term in our U.S. Constitution.
Every word in it was chosen carefully and put there for a reason.
As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540 (1840):
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.”
Since, as Chief Justice Taney explained, every word in the U.S. Constitution is there for a specific reason, reporters should not be omitting words when asking presidential and/or vice-presidential candidates about their citizenship status. They should not be asking if the candidates or prospective candidates are simply a “Citizen“. Instead they should be asking if they are a “natural born Citizen” — to constitutional standards as intended and understood by the founders and framers. The adjective “natural” before the words “born Citizen” means something very specific. It means created by nature or natural law, not by positive, man-made laws such as Title 8 Section 1401, amendments, or treaties. Man-made laws cannot create a “natural born Citizen“. Only the laws of nature and the facts at the time of the persons birth can create a natural born Citizen.
The word “natural” points to the laws of nature and whether both your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born. It takes two U.S. citizens to procreate a natural born Citizen born in this country. A “natural born Citizen” is a person born in the country to parents who are both Citizens of the country.
And per the last line of the 12th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, they are also not eligible to run for Vice President either.
I know this is a sad thought for conservatives like myself, but if we wish to protect and uphold the Constitution, we must uphold our Constitution and look to history and original intent and understanding of the words and terms used for an explanation.
P.P.S. This is NOT about politics or anything else but the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our land. If we lose the full force and effect of every word in it, we lose our constitutional republic and our rule of law. Amend it via a properly brought and approved constitutional amendment or respect and obey it. Don’t try to dissemble the true original intent, understood meaning, and purpose of the words chosen and used therein when the founders and framers wrote them in the founding era just to achieve some modern day political party agenda and goal.