Share This Article with a Friend!


CHQ 2016 GOP Presidential Straw Poll: Week 12

It's never too early to start thinking about the 2016 presidential election. While you may change your mind later, tell us who you'd like to see as the GOP nominee this week. ConservativeHQ.com's Weekly GOP Presidential Straw Poll is available exclusively to registered CHQ members. To register, click here. If you are already a member, please log-in by clicking here. You may vote once a week. Review the choices FIRST before adding a write-in candidate as we made additions.

Presidential Poll Candidates 
MY CHOICE FOR THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
THIS WEEK IS:
Choices

Login to vote in this poll.

Sarah Palin

First and foremost we need a candidate who is strong in her
beliefs. One who will stand up for what she believes in and
not crumble or change sides under unrelenting liberal media hits.
We also absolutely need someone outside the Republican Establishment.
We need someone who is electable. A woman who can go head
on with Hillary Clinton. Please think about putting forward
a candidate who has the charisma to charm away voters from
the other side. After all, if a charming community organizer
can win why can't an attractive woman. Just saying, number
one is to get a believer in the White House. We know what
can happen once they are in there.

Sarah Palin

Most of you readers didn't live through the entire Great Depression and WWII, or listened on the radio to that great program, "Jack Armstrong, the All American Boy."

Well, I did, and I can tell you that Sarah Palin is the female equivalent of Jack Armstrong, the All American Boy -- now all grown up.

Trust me! We need Sarah in 2016 as our President. She is already vetted and proven to be capable and trustworthy. I don't trust anyone else!

Presidential pick poll

I picked Alan West - he's a strong solid leader with incredible conservative wisdom. BUT! I could also have picked: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Jim DeMint, Bobby Jindal, Mike Lee, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, & Scott Walker. I wish I could pick all of them - we are blessed with an incrediy deep bench! but what do you want to bet that the libs will once again try to convince an uninformed public (& even us!) that the conservatives have no leaders with gravitas! Let's don't fall for that again. Let's first convince these guys not to tear each other apart in the primaries. Then let's get one of them into the W H & see all the rest of them in Cabinet, judicial, or other important appointive federal posts. We might yet save our USA!

Presidential pick poll

I picked Alan West - he's a strong solid leader with incredible conservative wisdom. BUT! I could also have picked: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Jim DeMint, Bobby Jindal, Mike Lee, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, & Scott Walker. I wish I could pick all of them - we are blessed with an incrediy deep bench! but what do you want to bet that the libs will once again try to convince an uninformed public (& even us!) that the conservatives have no leaders with gravitas! Let's don't fall for that again. Let's first convince these guys not to tear each other apart in the primaries. Then let's get one of them into the W H & see all the rest of them in Cabinet, judicial, or other important appointive federal posts. We might yet save our USA!

If Obama Can Be President, Then So Can Ted Cruz

"The partisan and dishonest liberal media will continue to attack Ted Cruz and shield Barack Obama. The cowardly Republicans and conservative pundits will remain silent to protect their financial stake in a corrupt political system."

By Colonel LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD

In order to understand the controversy regarding Presidential eligibility, Americans must first disabuse themselves of the notions that politicians obey the law and journalists tell the truth. As a class, neither is driven by service to the nation, but by political expediency to protect and enhance their own financial interests.

Although politicians and journalists would have you think otherwise, the laws defining Presidential eligibility are unambiguous.

In addition to being over the age of thirty-five and a resident of the United States for fourteen years, Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen.

The term "natural born citizen" was well-known during the time of the writing of the Constitution from Vattel's "Law of Nations" (1758), which stated "natural-born citizens are those born in a country of citizen parents" (Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212).

Subsequently, the binding Supreme Court precedent Minor vs. Happersett (1875) defined a natural born citizen as a US citizen born to two US citizen parents at the time of birth.

According to that definition, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum are ineligible to be President. None of them fulfill the requirement of natural born citizenship because at least one parent was not a US citizen at the time of their births.

Why is there a controversy? Because, I repeat, politicians and journalists are driven by political expediency in order to protect and enhance their own financial interests.
Lewis H. Lapham ("A Wish for Kings") accurately described how the US Government operates:

"The politicians dress up the deals in the language of law or policy, but they're in the business of brokering the tax revenue, and what keeps them in office is not their talent for oratory but their skill at redistributing the national income in a way that rewards their clients, patrons, friends and campaign contributors."

That is, our permanent political class and the symbiotic media, who feed off the system, are the beneficiaries of an extortion racket, which remains in business only through a continuous flow of taxpayer dollars and a burgeoning debt.

Not unlike common criminals, politicians do not wish to be constrained by the rule of law, particularly the Constitution, which inhibits their political maneuverability and desire for an ever-expanding central government.

Since 1975, there have been numerous attempts by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to amend the Article II "natural born citizen" clause.

The censorship and disinformation campaign about Obama's ineligibility began in February 2008, about the time he started to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary.

In a classical political diversion, Obama supporters fabricated a controversy that questioned the eligibility of Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ). The basis of their challenge was that McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital while his U.S. Navy officer father and his U.S. citizen mother were serving at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

The fake McCain controversy was settled in April 2008 through Senate Resolution 511, which, in essence, was a political deal struck between the Democrats and Republicans that provided validation for McCain and, hopefully from the Democratic standpoint, cover for Obama on the issue of eligibility.

SR 511, a non-binding resolution with an unrecorded vote, had no force of law, but by passing it Congress created the conditions whereby the Constitution could be amended de facto through a back-room political pact.

Republican involvement in SR 511 and the fear of being branded a "racist" by the liberal media prevented any meaningful vetting of candidate Obama after he secured the Democratic Presidential nomination in June 2008.

Complicit with the Democrats in violating the Constitution, the Republicans joined them in a deliberate campaign of disinformation to hide the truth about Obama and the natural born requirement; an effort that continues to this day.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties know that exposing Obama now would reveal their dereliction of duty, their collusion to undermine the Constitution and their uninterrupted flouting of the rule of law. They all know that the truth would upend the status quo and terminate their exclusive grip on political power, allowing the American people to regain control of their government; an outcome that they will go to any length to prevent.

The partisan and dishonest liberal media will continue to attack Ted Cruz and shield Barack Obama. The cowardly Republicans and conservative pundits will remain silent to protect their financial stake in a corrupt political system.

As a consequence, the country will be lesser for it.

August 23, 2013 TPATH

My vote for President in 2016

My pick of a candidate for President would be either, Dr. Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul.

FYI

Dr. Carson doesn't believe everyone has a right to bear arms, "it depends where you live."

He also doesn't support defunding Obamacare.

Congressional Research Service: Ted Cruz Not Qualified

How can a child born abroad of one U.S. citizen parent qualify when two citizen parents are required?

The question was answered by the CRS in 2004.

In 2004 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a document titled “The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation”, and subtitled “Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002”.

The entire portion of the document dealing with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution (Presidential Qualifications) is contained in two pages of a 2300 page document.

Interestingly, there is no mention of several important cases decided by the Supreme Court in which the meaning of “natural born Citizen” was addressed or discussed by the court in its rulings, including the well-known Minor v Happersett case and the Venus case, in which Justice Livingston quotes directly from Vattel on the definition of “natural born Citizen”. The analysis offered deals entirely with the issue of “whether a child born abroad of American parents is a ‘natural born citizen’ in the sense of the clause” in the Constitution.

However, there is still some value to be derived from this CRS analysis.

The article begins by noting that all presidents since Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence (not having been aware in 2004 of the true status of Chester Arthur as probably born in Canada of a non-U.S. citizen father, as a result of which Arthur burned all of his personal papers prior to his death in an apparent effort to conceal the truth of his lack of presidential eligibility).

This brief article goes on to make reference to the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which the following language appears:

“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea…shall be considered as natural born citizens”(emphasis added).

Drawing a connection with British statues governing “natural born subjects”, the writer comments:

“There is reason to believe therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.” (emphasis added)

The clear implications of this sentence are that, as of the year 2004, the CRS had concluded not that persons born abroad of U.S. citizen parents are definitively include in the class of “natural born citizens, but only that “there is reason to believe” that such is the case, and then only if the parents (two parents) are U.S. citizens.

Nothing in this analysis even suggests that a child born abroad of one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent could be included in the class of “natural born citizens” for whom eligibility for service in the office of president of the United States would be satisfied.

For those who would argue that somehow the Fourteenth Amendment (which does not even contain the words “natural born citizen” and was adopted to address the problem of the citizenship of the former slaves) altered the intent and requirements of the presidential qualification clause of Article II of the original Constitution, a footnote is offered which discourages this line of thinking.

The problem of resolving an issue arising from a provision of the original Constitution by reference to an amendment of that same document is articulated in the following sentence :

“Reliance on the provision of an amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by, but is strongly militated against by, the language in Freytag v. Commissioner…in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ‘Heads of Departments’ in the appointments clause.”

So now we know that the Congressional Research Service concluded in 2004 that a child born abroad of parents (two parents) who are themselves U.S. citizens may be considered a “natural born citizen” and thus eligible for the presidency.

We also know that any presidential eligibility argument based on the language of the Fourteenth Amendment (in which the citizenship status of the former slaves was resolved) is quite unlikely to be able to demonstrate any logical connection of that Amendment to, or bearing on, Article II presidential qualifications; nor is it likely that the Supreme Court would even consider the Fourteenth Amendment to be relevant in a presidential eligibility case.

That leaves us with a puzzling question.

Just how is it that one can argue that Senator Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country (Canada) of a non-U.S. citizen father, can qualify as a candidate for the presidency under the requirements of Article II that he be a “natural born citizen”?

It seems quite clear that Ted Cruz cannot qualify as a candidate for the presidency.

Obama's president

Since President Obama is a sitting president with only having one US citizen parent and has not been legitimately challenged on that, it makes Ted Cruz eligible to be president. One can not say that Obama can be sworn in as president but Cruz can not. Obama's presidency has thrown all that out the window. I would take a Palin/Cruz ticket any day over the others in that list.

Reply to- Obamas president

The reasoning that allows Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and others to be permitted to become president because Obama previously became one is pure fiction. One successful criminal act does NOT change the law to make all future criminal acts valid.

Obama was, and still is not an eligable candidate for president. The fact that he was not vetted, despite accusations at the time and since, only escalates the guilty parties. He has committed fraud, with the help and knowledge of others. That makes them accomplices of a conspiracy and organized crime. This is NOT going to end well! It involves the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches as parties to the crime.

I think Ted Cruz and others should stay well clear of this fiasco. They may already be in trouble because of knowledge of Obama's ineligability and concealing it. They violated their duty and Oath of Office. Isn't that treason?

Let's compare it to a murder. If there are 100 witnesses to a murder and all refuse to testify as a witness, did the murder happen? What's the fate of 99 witnesses after ONE finally comes forward and implicates them all?

However, if noboby speaks up, is murder now legal for the next guy?

All that is required to be a

All that is required to be a "natural born Citizen" is a citizen father. Place of birth and mother's citizenship are irrelevant. See Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, section 212.

Are two U.S. citizens parents required for NBC?

The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders intended "natural born Citizen" to mean "born in the country of parents who citizens".

Vattel Asked for History to Be His Judge

It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. It was Vattel, who stated in Section 212: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . ." Vattel, Section 212 (1797 London edition)(and as translated by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (repeating Vattel's definition without citing him); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of "natives or indigenes" which is later translated to "natives or natural born citizens"); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel's definition and stating in referring to his definition: "The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . ."); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel's definition of "citizen" and "natural born citizen").

Rep. John Bingham, principal author of the 14th Amendment, speaking on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives:

Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment, repeated Vattel's definition when he said: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

***************************************************************************

Arizona’s Proposed Interstate Birth Certificate Compact Law As Now Written Is Both Unconstitutional and Contrary to the Best Interests of the United States

Why do we need that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents?

Arizona’s proposed law would defeat the whole purpose of the Framers using the natural law definition of a “natural born Citizen” as the standard to be met by any would-be President and Commander in Chief. There is good reason why the Framers relied upon natural law to provide the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Under natural law which when applied to nations become the law of nations, a “natural born Citizen” is defined as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

Vattel explains that it is “our extraction, not the place of birth, that gives us rights.” Id. at Section 216. We can see that under natural law and the law of nations, it is the condition of the parents that is critical to making a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, when applying the natural law definition of “natural born citizen,” we have to look only to the citizenship of the parents of the child at the moment of birth. But nations pass positive laws regarding citizenship which impact on the allegiance and citizenship of individuals born in and out of their territory. Hence, we also have to look to the place of birth when nations pass such positive laws concerning the citizenship status of its citizens born either in or out of its national boundaries. Vattel explains that those laws must be followed when a sovereign nation passes such laws. Id. at Section 215.

Under natural law and the law of nations and how the Framers juxtaposed “natural born Citizen” with “citizen of the United States” in Article I and II of the Constitution, a “natural born Citizen” includes all those born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those born with foreign allegiance. The purpose of having the natural law national character of “natural born citizen” is to show that a person is born with natural allegiance to only one nation. It was because the “natural born Citizen” status gives a person such a natural character from birth that the Founders and Framers chose that natural law status as having to be the one to be held by a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military from the moment of birth. Indeed, it was this national character that for them best kept foreign influence out of the Offices of President and Commander in Chief.

A child born in the U.S. to alien parents inherits at birth a foreign natural allegiance from one foreign parent as he or she does from two foreign parents. This occurs under the doctrine of jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from one’s parents or other ascendants). With one foreign parent, he or she acquires positive law allegiance to the U.S. from being born on its territory and natural allegiance to the foreign nation of his or her parent by being born to them. With two foreign parents, he or she acquires positive law allegiance to the U.S. and natural allegiance to the two foreign nations of his or her parents. If the child is born out of the United States, he or she will acquire positive law foreign allegiance from the foreign territory on which he or she may be born. The point is that unless the child is born to two U.S. citizen parents in the U.S. which cuts off any possibility that either natural law foreign allegiance, inherited from alien parents, or positive law foreign allegiance, acquired from birth on foreign soil, will attach to the child, he or she will acquire either a natural foreign allegiance or a positive law foreign allegiance. Any one of these conditions under the natural law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” prevents that child from being considered a “natural born Citizen.”

No U.S. Court has ever ruled that a person born on U.S. soil to one or two alien parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, the only definition of a "natural born Citizen" ever found in any U.S. Supreme Court case is a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents. As authority for this definition, there exists the following cases: The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites and quoted from Emer de Vattel, Section 212 of The Law of Nations); Inglis v. Trustee of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 29 U.S. 99 (1830); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (gives the same Vattelian definition); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (not a Supreme Court case but persuasive); Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883) (not a U.S. Supreme Court case but persuasive); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (not a U.S. Supreme Court case but persuasive); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cites and quotes Minor’s Vattelian/American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen”) and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (confirmed that a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents, even if those parents are naturalized U.S. citizens, is a “natural born Citizen”); contra the state case of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009) (declared that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” But the court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." In fact, the Ankeny court, while dismissing the plaintiffs' case, never ruled that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." Nor did it rule that he was a "natural born Citizen." Ankeny mistakenly concluded that the 14th Amendment case of Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a born “citizen of the United States.” In so ruling, the Ankeny court also incorrectly equated a British "natural born subject" with a U.S. "natural born Citizen" and incorrectly relied upon Wong Kim Ark).

There also exists evidence directly from the Founding period which conclusively shows that a "natural born Citizen" was a child born to citizen parents and not to one or two alien parents. In his 1789 essay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.”

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=two+citizen+parents

***************************************************************************

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789

In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

In his 1789 essay, while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6.

He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7.

He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Ramsay did not use the clause “natural born Citizen.” Rather, he referred to citizenship as a birthright which he said was a natural right. But there is little doubt that how he defined birthright citizenship meant the same as "natural born Citizen," "native," and "indigenous," all terms that were then used interchangeably.

Is Ted Cruz a Modern-Day Chester Arthur?

A conservative believes in fealty to the United States Constitution.

Article II of the Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born Citizen".

A "natural born Citizen" must have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his or her birth. This was confirmed in a 2004 report of the Congressional Research Service. (See separate comment)

Ted Cruz does not meet that requirement.

Our failure to insist on conformance with the Constitution, going back to the early part of the last century with the fraudulent expansion of the income tax, fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, the unconstitutional creation of the Federal Reserve System, and abandonment of the gold standard resulting in a fiat currency in violation of the Constitution, led us to the mess we have now with a federal government monster that operates virtually without any constitutional restraints whatever.

If the Constitution is not honored in every respect, it is not honored at all, and is soon ignored. That is where we are now.

All of the sophistry of the Ted Cruz and Barack Obama eligibility defenders does not change the simple fact that neither Barack Obama nor Ted Cruz have two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth.

This is the very reason that Chester Arthur burned all of his personal papers prior to his death. He had a non-U.S. citizen father at birth, and was very likely born in Canada. He knew that he was never eligible for the presidency, but was determined to insure that these facts would never come to light.

In Ted Cruz we have a potential modern-day Chester Arthur.

TED CRUZ

I see that Ted Cruz' father is a non-citizen & a mother who is a U.S. citizen. So how can he NOT be eligible to become President? I think Ted would make a great President or Vice-President. He's a fantastic breath of fresh air, a staunch Conservitive Republican Citizen! He's a family man with principles & values that America should be thrilled to have him as our President.V

Is it to be the person or the rule of law?

Ted Cruz is an impressive person, a strong conservative, with obvious leadership qualities. No doubt he would make an excellent president.

He is just not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution.

NBC does not just mean "born naturally from a mother who is an American citizen".

It means "born in the country of parents who are citizens".

We made this mistake with Obama. It s time to get back to the Constitution.

Do you believe in the Constitution or not?

Without the Constitution, we no longer have the rule of law. This is what is causing so many of the problems we are seeing in this nation.