Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree4Likes
  • 2 Post By kathyet2
  • 1 Post By MW
  • 1 Post By HAPPY2BME

Thread: PREZ RUN: RUBIO, JINDAL & CRUZ ALL CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    PREZ RUN: RUBIO, JINDAL & CRUZ ALL CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE

    PREZ RUN: RUBIO, JINDAL & CRUZ ALL CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE
    By: Devvy
    May 19, 2014
    NewsWithViews.com


    Here we go again.



    Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal all want to be the next U.S. president. The only problem is, just like the impostor in the White House, Barack Obama (known aliases used: Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and aka Barry Dunham), all three are constitutionally ineligible, contrary to declarations from their campaign managers, ignorant journalists and partisan mouth pieces.


    Jonathan Tilove, The Times-Picayune: "They (Jindal's parents) arrived Feb 1, 1971, and a bit over four months later, on June 10, 1971, Piyush Jindal was born at Woman's Hospital in Baton Rouge, a natural-born U.S. citizen, who like every other child born in America, could, constitutionally, grow up to be president."
    His parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth; they were here on green cards. His mother became a citizen in 1976, his father in 1986. Jindal is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen.


    Rubio was born in May 1971 in Miami, Florida. His parents did not become U.S. citizens until November 1975. Rubio is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen.


    Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was born in Delaware. Cruz' father was born in Cuba, lived in the U.S. on a student visa, went to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. But, he did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 2005. Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen. When the issue of Cruz' ineligibility came up in mid - 2013 with the Dallas Morning News proclaiming he was born with dual citizenship, Cruz announced he was giving up his dual citizenship because Ted Cruz wants to be president more than he wants to take his next breath:

    "Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship," he continued. "Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American."


    Technically? Sorry, Ted, but like the fraud in the White House, you were born with dual citizenship. The prostitute MSM including big money anchors on FOX like Hannity & O'Reilly to this day continue to parrot that because the fraud in the White House's mother was a U.S. citizen, therefore, so is Barry Soetoro. The key word here being born. Cruz thinks be can become natural born at age 43 when he announced he would give up his Canadian citizenship.


    In that Dallas Morning News item, ignorance flows like champagne during prohibition:
    "As speculation ramps up about Cruz's political future, some have questioned his eligibility to become president. Most legal experts have said Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen," a requirement for the White House job, as stated in the Constitution. "In the Dallas Morning News Sunday, legal experts told the paper that Cruz is not only eligible for president in the United States, he's also technically a Canadian citizen and can even run for Parliament. Unless he renounces his citizenship there, he could also obtain a Canadian passport, according to the newspaper."


    The latest update I can find is Cruz was still saying he intends to give up his citizenship in January 2014: "TORONTO (AP) — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz vowed months ago to renounce his Canadian citizenship by the end of 2013, but the Calgary-born Republican is still a dual citizen. Cruz, 43, recently said in an interview with the Dallas Morning News that lawyers are preparing the paperwork to renounce citizenship, just as he said in August. Richard Kurland, a Vancouver-based immigration attorney, wonders what's taking so long. Kurland said Friday that unless there's a security or mental health issue that hasn't been disclosed, renouncing citizenship is a simple, quick process."


    Is a red flag coming up? In any event, Cruz still believes he can be a natural born citizen at any given time.


    There was a reason the Founding Fathers grand fathered in the 'natural born citizen' clause in the Constitution. They wanted to make absolutely sure as possible there would be no dual loyalties for a U.S. president. While I have no doubt Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are loyal Americans, one need only look at the usurper in the White House regarding loyalty to these united States of America and the U.S. Constitution. Soetoro was groomed by a high profile communist in Hawaii and then went on to Chicago to resume his communist connections. He is a die hard Marxist: Obama’s proven communist connections in Hawaii and Chicago.


    We all know about the dozens and dozens of eligibility cases brought against Barry Soetoro aka Obama and why every single challenge was shot down by politically corrupt judges: his skin is black. The biggest disappointment for the truth came on March 21, 2014, nearly a year after oral arguments from the Alabama Supreme Court:

    Alabama Supreme Court upholds decision to toss 'birther' lawsuit, Chief Justice Roy Moore dissents


    "The Alabama Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a 2012 lawsuit which wanted Alabama's Secretary of State to certify the birth certificate of each presidential candidate before allowing their names to appear on the general election ballot. The court ruled 7-2 on the issue, with Chief Justice Roy Moore one of two justices who dissented from the majority's decision, arguing the lower court should have directed the secretary of state to check candidate birth certificates."


    "The court determined that while the Secretary of State should check qualifications for a candidate, in 2012, no such authority existed to do so. Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote on that issue: "The chief justice argued that the results of the election did not render "moot" the plaintiffs' claim that the Secretary of State had a duty to verify under the "natural-born citizen clause of the United States Constitution" each candidate's eligibility to serve as president, before their names can appear on the ballot.


    "Moore wrote that the Secretary of State has a duty under the U.S. Constitution to ensure candidates are qualified for office and he said the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs petition in order to implement the natural-born citizen qualifications clause in future elections. "Moore also argued that the court should have granted the petition and ordered the Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of the presidential candidates who appeared on the 2012 ballot. "Although the removal of a President-elect or a President who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function," Moore wrote.


    "This matter is of great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress."


    "Parker wrote he concurred with Moore, but didn't believe the secretary has a duty to investigate every proposed candidate." (The full 83 page decision is here.)


    No, a constitutionally ineligible candidate cannot be remedied through impeachment, because if a candidate is ineligible to be on the ballot, no one has the right to vote for that person. That candidate usurped the office, therefore he/she never occupied the office. How do you impeach someone who never legally held the office? But, there are those who don't care, they simply want Barry aka Obama out of the White House using impeachment. Many are hopeful Comrade Obama will take so much heat over an impeachment, he would resign.


    Nor can the impostor be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors since he was not eligible for the office of president. No one had the right to vote for him. He usurped it through fraud and lies. Barry Soetoro aka Obama has never held the office of president legally. He has committed many crimes including impersonating the president of these united States of America and as a civilian, he can be indicted and prosecuted, but there are no real men or women who will step up to the plate in their official capacity and take his crimes to a federal grand jury. They're all a bunch of gutless suits and judicial robes who shame our justice system. I wonder how they look at themselves in the mirror.


    Getting back to the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution, I urge you to take the time to read the pieces below by constitutional attorney, Mario Apuzzo, if not today, take one each day:
    Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to be President
    Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson's Article Defending Marco Rubio's Constitutional Eligibility (Including Bobby Jindal)
    Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen


    As Mario talks about Minor, this is it and the meaning of that decision written by attorney Leo Donofrio: Minor v Happersett is Binding Precedent as to the Constitutional Definition of a Natural Born Citizen


    Don't look to the Democratic/Communist Party USA to step up to the plate. They know if even one of them is determined to be ineligible the world will know Barry Soetoro aka Obama was/is ineligible and every bill he signed into "law" and every treaty he signed is null and void. There was some noise made about Rubio's eligibility a couple of years ago, but like Cruz, it went away for the reason I just stated. You can bet the word was quietly put out there by those pulling the strings to shut up Democrats about Republicans and eligibility.


    Many of the lawsuits were thrown out using the excuse the Secretary of State isn't required to check eligibility of a candidate, which makes one want to vomit. In the past, however, ineligible candidates have been removed from the ballot, just not Barry aka Obama because his skin color is black. His race was the shadow government's trump card shoved down our throats and protected by the prostitute media, high profile "conservatives" on talk radio AND cable network anchors who called those of us who believe the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land all kinds of names.


    We know both times Barry aka Obama was submitted as a candidate, the Democratic/Communist Party USA committed fraud. If the Republican Party submits ballot qualification paperwork for Rubio, Jindal or Cruz to be on any presidential ballot, they will also be committing fraud by knowingly and willfully submitting an ineligible candidate.


    While we have more urgent issues right now, people are already out there working (and donating their hard earned money) to convince their fellow party members that Cruz, Rubio or Jindal should be the next president. I sincerely hope when the time comes, lawsuits will be filed against the Republican Party to keep those ineligible candidates off the ballot. I know how desperate Republicans and many independents are to take the White House. It will NOT happen if any form of amnesty goes through. You can take money to the bookie on that one - unless, the shadow government who control the game decide it's in their best interests for the time being to put another RINO in the Oval Office.


    But, that aside, what kind of hypocrites would we be if we don't fight constitutionally ineligible Republican candidates as we fought to keep the current usurper out of the White House? Well, let me give you a prime example:
    Cruz's Supporters Don't Question Eligibility


    KINGWOOD, Texas — "When Democrat Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, Republican voter Christina Katok of Walden said she believed he was ineligible for the job. She reasoned that he was born in Kenya and therefore wasn't a “natural born” American — one of a handful of constitutional requirements for the job. (Obama's birth certificate shows that he was born in Hawaii, but some critics do not accept that as fact.)


    "Fast forward six years and another freshman U.S. senator, Canadian-born Tea Party firebrand Ted Cruz of Texas, is being mentioned as a potential 2016 presidential candidate. But Katok, who would vote for Cruz in a heartbeat, doesn't have any concerns about his eligibility. “As far as I'm concerned, Canada is not really foreign soil,” she said. Katok said she was more disturbed by Obama's "strong ties to Kenya," the African country where his father was born. She also said she didn't like the fact that Obama did not release his long-form birth certificate during the 2008 race....


    "Liberal critics say Republicans who questioned Obama’s presidential eligibility are being hypocritical now that one of their own is facing questions about his. Republican partisans say the controversies are different — and that Cruz has been more transparent about the circumstances of his birth. But partisanship may also be a factor in the differing perceptions. Kerrville real estate broker Sue Tiemann, for example, said she had questioned Obama’s American citizenship and concluded that if he had not been born in this country, he would not be eligible.


    "Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, though, nobody disputed that his mother was from Kansas. In that case, it would be strikingly similar to the circumstances of Cruz’s birth: a mother who was an American citizen, born in Delaware, and a father born somewhere else (in Cruz’s case, Cuba). Tiemann, who said she has no doubt that Cruz is eligible to be president, acknowledged that party affiliation might have something to do with her evaluation of the circumstances. “You are always going to have that issue between Republicans and Democrats, [who] always look at it with a different way, a different eye,” she said."

    Not only are those Cruz supporters completely ignorant of the natural born citizen clause, Katok doesn't care about Cruz' eligibility because this time it's her candidate. Hell, she doesn't even believe the country of Canada is foreign soil!


    This isn't about their politics or personalities (Cruz, Rubio, Jindal), it's about the Constitution. Mark my words - you will see a large number of Republicans, just like the Cruz supporters above, who care nothing about the U.S. Constitution if it might disqualify their favorite presidential candidate attack people like me for standing up for the supreme law of the land. However, that should not stop we the people from demanding only constitutional presidential candidates for any of the political parties appear on the ballot in all 50 states.


    Important Links - If you can't read today, please bookmark, but be sure to read them. If we are to fight, we must do it with facts - in this case, historical ones:
    1- US Supreme Court Precedent States That Obama Is Not Eligible to be President
    2- The Mr. Binney Funeral Humiliates The Reputation Of The United States Supreme Court.
    3- Is There Any Way To Get The Impostor Out of the White House?
    4- Quo Warranto Legal Brief - Part 1
    5- Quo Warranto Legal Brief - Part 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment
    6- Quo Warranto Legal Brief - Part 3: Standing Trial By Jury - History of Statute - Separation of Powers
    7- The strange 2008 McCain-Obama Presidential eligibility debate
    8- Historical and legal analysis: Natural Born at Birth
    9- Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving


    Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.


    © 2014 - NewsWithViews.com and Devvy - All Rights Reserved


    http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd636.htm



    Last edited by kathyet2; 05-19-2014 at 10:38 AM.
    Ratbstard and AirborneSapper7 like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,185
    I would not vote for any of the three anyway, I would guess many others would'nt, but based upon past elections am I wrong? It would seem to me after the past 5 years of this being debated, parties would be remiss for offering such confusion again. Then again, I have very little faith in either of the major parties. That did not solve much, now I'm back where I began, I do not vote for the candidate of either party! That way I do not have to concern myself about them being trustworthy because so many times they have already proven that they are'nt, so it is likely that they are still the same, not worthy of my trust!

  3. #3
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,696
    I'd certainly vote for Cruz or Jindal over Clinton or Bidon. However, with that said, I'm still hoping someone like Sen. Sessions, former Rep. Duncan Hunter, or former Sen. DeMint throw their hat in the ring. Of course I'm sure none of these folks will run, but I'm hoping someone like-minded will come out soon!
    kathyet2 likes this.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    H2 Note: The Republican Party is a complete BASKET CASE, run and managed by corporate elitists who could give a Rat's Ass about Conservative Values such as God, Family, and Country. That is why you will not see the Republican Party provide a winning 'Conservative' candidate, and why Hillary Clinton has an excellent chance of being the POTUS in 2016. They did it in 2012, when ALL ODDS were stacked against Barack Obama, Mitt Romney said he didn't even want to run, and their darling child Chris Christie showcased Obama walking and hugging with him through the streets of New Jersey after hurricane Sandy.

    In short, if you are counting on the Republican Party to bail out this country, you might as well move to Mexico.

    -------------------------------------------------------


    Can the GOP Win Hispanic Voters in 2016?


    And the paper adds that Martínez, “seen as a possible pick for vice president in 2016,” will be auditioning with other possible GOP 2016 standard-bearers, too:
    Bob and Barbara Dreyfuss on May 19, 2014



    New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, left, campaigning with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in Hillside, New Jersey, November 4, 2013. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    It’s just one sign, among many others, that the Republican establishment is figuring out that it needs Hispanic voters on its side if it has a prayer of winning the 2016 presidential election: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is heading to New Mexico to campaign for Susana Martínez, the governor of New Mexico. Christie, who heads the Republican Governors Association (RGA), will spend some time in the state with Martínez, who is well positioned for reelection in a Democratic-trending state.

    According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, former vice president Dick Cheney will also be stomping around the state to campaign with Martínez. And the paper adds that Martínez, “seen as a possible pick for vice president in 2016,” will be auditioning with other possible GOP 2016 standard-bearers, too:

    Next week, Martinez is headed for Chevy Chase, Md., to attend a re-election fundraiser at which “honored guests” include several potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates, including U.S. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, vice chairman of the Republican Governors Committee.

    In late 2013, of course, Christie and Martínez—both establishment-minded GOP governors in blue states—were often mentioned together as possible 2016 running mates. The Atlantic, noting that Martine had campaigned with Christie in 2013 during his re-election effort, headlined its piece in November: “Chris Christie-Susana Martinez: Is This Your 2016 Republican Ticket?” And the San Antonio Express-News headlined: “Christie-Martínez could be strong 2016 ticket,” adding:

    Is it possible that the winning ticket for Republicans in 2016 was on display during the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign? The pairing has a nice ring to it: Christie-Martínez.
    That was before Bridgegate, of course. And Republicans who want to curry favor with Hispanic voters nationally are facing a very, very steep uphill climb. Any idea that simply nominating a Hispanic woman is enough to corral lots of Hispanic votes ignores the fact that on substance the Republicans have alienated immigrants by their refusal to move forward on reform—not to mention reactionary Republican views on issues that matter to Hispanics, such as healthcare reform, job creation, the minimum wage and a host of other issues. Plus, this week President Obama reached out to San Antonio to pick its mayor to lead the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    It is, of course, the second time a Democratic president did exactly that: picked the mayor of San Antonio to run HUD. (In the 1990s, President Clinton picked Henry Cisneros, who’d been San Antonio’s mayor from 1981 to 1989, for the job.) Obama is calling on Julián Castro—the current mayor, who also has Cisneros’ backing—and he’s already being talked about as a possible running mate for Hillary Clinton in 2016. According to The New York Times, Castro is dropping plenty of hints that he might want the job: “Whatever happens in the next two years to eight years, I’ll have time,” says Castro. Adds the Times:

    Few prominent Hispanic Democrats are positioned to be considered for vice president in 2016, but several Republicans are thought to be prospects for their party’s next ticket, including Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico.… Given how crucial Hispanics’ votes were in Mr. Obama’s two victories, some Democrats believe that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she run and win the nomination, would be wise to pick a Hispanic running mate.

    Back in April, in a profile of Castro and his twin brother, Joaquin Castro, the congressman from San Antonio, the Times reported: “The 39-year-old brothers seem to be everywhere these days.” Asked whether he might be a good fit for a VP nomination in 2016, Julián Castro said then: “Call me in 2016.”

    The Republican establishment—now busy beating back the Tea Party far right while, simultaneously, trying to keep them on the reservation for the fall elections in 2014—gets the Hispanic vote issue. Last February, Grover Norquist, the zealous crusader against taxation who straddles the gap between Tea Party and establishment, and Tom Donohue, the president of the US Chamber of Commerce, sounded clarion calls for some sort of immigration reform, in order to persuade Hispanic voters and others that the GOP isn’t the enemy of immigrants and their families.
    Speaking on C-Span, Norquist—who’s long favored immigration reform—spoke out strongly for action on immigration reform:

    Forty percent of our Fortune 500 companies are run by either immigrants or the sons or daughters of immigrants, so immigration brings a lot of talent, a lot of opportunity. … It’s what makes the United States dynamic versus the rest of the world. … The reason we’re the future and China isn’t is [because] we do immigration and have a growing population and a more vibrant one. [There’s] a lot of whining that goes on during this process, but we watched fifty years ago and 100 years ago when our parents showed up, or got whined at, and now we’re whining about the new guys. But in point of fact, I think that we’ll see some sort of reform because we need to do something.

    And Donohue added:

    Immigrants do not typically compete with Americans for jobs, and, in fact, create more jobs through entrepreneurship, economic activity, and tax revenues.… Immigrants serve as a complement to US-born workers and can help fill labor shortages across the skill spectrum and in key sectors.

    The trend is clearly running against the GOP, however, and in any case (despite modest efforts by Speaker of the House John Boehner to move things forward), the Republicans in Congress shot down any chance for immigration reform this year. In Texas, demographic trends and hard-core organizing by groups like Battleground Texas are trying to push Texas into the Democratic column. In a New York Times piece describing the group’s efforts, which have accelerated to support Democrat Wendy Davis’ run for governor, it’s clear that bringing the Lone Star state’s Hispanics into the mix is critical:

    Central to [their] goal will be persuading the more than two million Hispanics who are eligible to vote but did not in 2012. In 2010, about one million voting-age Hispanics cast ballots for a turnout rate of about 23 percent, compared with about 44 percent among white voters.
    That was the message, too, from the Center for American Progress, which released a study earlier this year about the changing demographics of the Hispanic vote and its growth in traditionally Republican states such as Texas and Arizona.

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/179917...ic-voters-2016
    kathyet2 likes this.
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Your Choice: The Ted Cruz or the Marco Rubio Immigration Plan?
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2013, 09:50 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2013, 02:36 AM
  3. Ted Cruz v. Marco Rubio on immigration
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2013, 05:06 PM
  4. Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secr
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2008, 01:23 PM
  5. Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be President
    By Coto in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-16-2008, 03:06 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •