See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Really, another Ineligible RNC Candidate?
Source:
Capital Hill Outsider
URL Source: http://capitolhilloutsider.com/real ... ther-ineligible-rnc-candidate/
Published: Aug 16, 2013
Author: JB Williams
Post Date: 2013-08-16 20:46:40 by Southern Style
Keywords: None
Views: 215
Comments: 16
By JB Williams: Clearly, the RNC has no more use for the constitution than the DNC does today. Nowhere is that more obvious than in their repeated effort to advance a constitutionally ineligible candidate equal to Barack Obama. But something much more troubling is afoot. Tea Party types are beginning to look like the most useful of all idiots. After five years of intense research and publication on the very basic topic of natural born Citizen, desperate “patriots” are still overlooking the most obvious attempt to use even “patriots” as useful tools of the left. The latest in a string of ineligible RNC darlings for the Oval Office is none other than Ted Cruz. First it was Bobby Jindal, born in Louisiana to parents who were citizens of India at the time. Then there was Marco Rubio, born in Florida to parents who were citizens of Cuba at the time. Now we have Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to parents who were both dual citizens, his father a dual citizen of Cuba and Canada, and his mother, a dual citizen of Canada and the USA. Tea Party folks claim to be all about the Constitution, except when it pertains to Article II of the Constitution which states – “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;” This opens the debate over what is and is not a natural born Citizen, though there isn’t much to debate really… 1) Why did the Founders identify one specific type of Citizen [natural born Citizen] as the only type of citizen eligible for the office of Commander-in-Chief? According to the Founders written discussions on the subject, it was to disallow anyone with dual or divided national loyalties the right of seeking or holding the Oval Office. Makes good sense, right? 2) Where did the Founders come up with the term natural born Citizen? Again, we know from Founders writings that they studied a treatise on Natural Law written by Vattel and titled The Law of Nations. We know that almost everything they created was based upon Natural Law because they told us so. Endowed by our Creator, remember? 3) How did Vattel define natural born Citizen in The Law of Nations? He defined the term this way. a) “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.” – This explains how John McCain is a NBC, birth place Panama, Father US Citizen. b) “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.” – This explains how Obama is not a NBC, as his Father could only confer his own rights to his son, those of a citizen of Kenya. c) “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” – And this explains why the Mother cannot confer natural born Citizenship at birth, the country of the Fathers. Why did the Founders exclude themselves from this requirement? Because all of the Founders were born prior to the adoption of this Constitutional requirement and therefore, could not possibly meet the requirement set in Article II of the Constitution. They had to be grandfathered in or none of them could have held the office of President, hence, this section of Article II – “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;” Despite their claims, anyone who does not understand this most fundamental reality of our Constitutional history is not a “constitutionalist” or even a Constitutional Conservative. No matter how much I might like Ted Cruz, I cannot support him for the highest office in our land without stepping in direct violation of the Constitution myself. Ted Cruz does appear to be one of our best pro-American members of congress, which does indeed make him a very useful tool for freedom-loving people. But no amendment or law can make him eligible for the Oval Office as the natural born Citizen requirement is based in Natural Law, inalienable by man-made law. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney were accused of not being natural born Citizens in their campaigns for the Oval Office. Based upon my personal research, both men appear to have been the natural offspring of Fathers who were legal Citizens of the USA, thereby conferring natural born U.S. Citizenship to John and Mitt at birth. However, the mere accusation was enough to cause both great difficulty in gaining the support of millions of Americans who are very focused on restoring the constitution as the law of the land today. It is not possible to subvert the constitution in the name of upholding and defending the constitution. These things are in direct conflict. Ted Cruz has stated that he is eligible on the basis that attorneys working to subvert the constitution have written opinions which attempt to alter the true definition of natural born Citizen. Members of congress tried to alter or eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II on eight separate occasions, failing in all eight attempts. Ted is wrong… It is a very fundamental subject. If Article II means nothing, or if the people don’t know what it means, then the balance of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are also moot. The people cannot possibly protect and defend concepts they don’t even understand. They are called our Charters of Freedom for good reason. Our freedoms are endowed by our Creator. But these documents are the founding protections for those freedoms. If we don’t know them, we cannot possibly defend them. Why has the RNC floated five questionable candidates in a row? Aren’t there any more natural born Citizens in the GOP? Or does the RNC simply want to place voters in the position of voting against the constitution, no matter who they vote for? In 2008, Americans had a choice between Barack Obama [unconstitutional nobody from nowhere] and John McCain, a constitutionally eligible candidate with a long history of subverting the constitution in congress, whose NBC status was questioned by folks hoping to elect Obama. In 2012, Americans had a choice between Barack Obama [now proven to be a foreign enemy of the USA] or Mitt Romney, a constitutionally eligible candidate whose NBC status was also placed in question by folks hoping to re-elect Obama. If either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio is on the RNC ticket in 2016, Americans will be forced to choose between constitutionally ineligible candidates of their own, or Hillary Clinton, a constitutionally eligible Marxist thug. Either way they go, they will be voting against the Constitutional Republic. That’s the trap! Who do you think is placing American voters in this position? Who is foolishly helping them do it? Most of the “legal” opinions on the matter are based on 14th Amendment immigration and naturalization court cases. Are Tea Party folks unaware of the fact that the 14th Amendment deals only with the naturalization options for immigrants? Or that obviously, if someone is a citizen via the 14th Amendment, they cannot possibly be a natural born Citizen of the United States? The issue of the mother comes up often today, due to relatively recent women’s rights statutes. To be truly equal to the male in the house, the mother must be able to confer natural born Citizenship the same as the Father, right? Wrong… natural born Citizenship is a condition which exists in nature, based in natural law rather than man-made law, the country of the fathers is therefore that of the children. In fact, ALL Natural Law Rights are inalienable, “that which cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another – that which is beyond the reach of legislation.” Just as a child inherits the Father’s surname and all that he possesses, the child inherits the Father’s Citizenship at birth. Not just in man-made statutes, but as a Law of Nature. This has been an internationally recognized Law of Nature for centuries. Does anyone remember Elian Gonzalez? His mother drowned in 1999 trying to swim her son to American shores. Elian’s extended family in Florida fought veraciously to keep Elian in America, but in the end, the U.S. Government returned Elian to his natural birth father in Cuba. Why? Because, the child inherits the rights and Citizenship of the Father. Elian’s natural birth father wanted his son returned to Cuba and he was returned to his natural birth father in Cuba. It is a law of nature, not of man. Even in this case, man could not alienate this law of nature. Our 14th Amendment has delivered numerous methods of acquiring basic U.S. citizenship, including via what is often referred to as “anchor baby” status, wherein a mother from a foreign country gives birth to a child on U.S. soil, negating the need for the child to endure the lengthy naturalization process. However, our Founders specified a specific type of Citizen for the highest office in our land, none other than a natural born Citizen. Barack Obama has repeatedly identified his Father as a man from Kenya, who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States. Obama claims NBC status upon the citizenship of his alleged birth mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, a U.S. citizen at the time of Barack’s alleged but still unconfirmed birth in Hawaii. As a child inherits natural born Citizenship from the birth Father alone, Barack Obama Jr. cannot possibly be a natural born Citizen of the United States, no matter his place of birth or his mother’s citizenship. At best, Barack Obama could be a basic citizen of the United States, although this too remains in question for the untraceable nobody from nowhere. Are Tea Party folks really “constitutionalists?” Or do they only care about certain cherry-picked sections of our founding documents? No true believer in our Charters of Freedom could ever support anyone or anything that directly undermines our Charters of Freedom and that includes supporting RNC candidates that are clearly not eligible for office. Words have meaning…especially in any compact. If you think by General Welfare our Founders meant free cell phones and food stamps, you are sadly mistaken. What if our Founders had written this – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Gay existence [Happiness]…” Gay existence means something entirely different in 2013 than it did in 1776, as is the case with General Welfare. The proper meaning is the accepted definition at the time the word is chosen for use, in this case, the 18th Century definition of natural born Citizen as defined in the Law of Nations. Cry all you want, but this is reality. In order to create a more perfect union, you cannot engage in the destruction of the cornerstones of that union. You don’t have to like it. You just have to abide by it or you are part of the problem. The end seldom justifies the means, but the road to hell is indeed, often paved with good intentions. Don’t be a useful idiot! If you want to be an idiot, at least be a useless idiot. Throw a party, hammer back some beers, smoke a joint and stay out of politics. If you are going to enter the fray, it’s your duty to know what you are talking about. Obama has enough useful idiots without patriots falling into the trap. Really, another Ineligible RNC Candidate?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#8. To: Southern Style (#0)
I credit my tagline above and below to Joe Farah, nice and succinct. I believe it's a significant issue before, now, and later! EXAMINE THE ISSUE CLOSELY!
#13. To: ndcorup (#8)
Exactly.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest""If we don’t adhere to the Constitution on matters as significant as presidential eligibility, then the Constitution ceases to be a meaningful document for guiding our nation."
Replies to Comment # 8. "If we don’t adhere to the Constitution on matters as significant as presidential eligibility, then the Constitution ceases to be a meaningful document for guiding our nation."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.