Author Topic: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques  (Read 7175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
When Ted Cruz went to Liberty University, he was expected to speak, not make a speech that would surpass Obama's employment of mass hypnosis techniques, and be on the same command threshold as that found in the speeches of Adolf Hitler.  The speech from last week is as follows.

God bless Liberty University. I am thrilled to join you today at the largest Christian University in the world. Today I want to talk to you about the promise of America. Imagine your parents when they were children. Imagine a little girl growing up in Wilmington, Delaware. It’s during World War II, the daughter of an Irish-Italian Catholic family. Working class–her uncle ran numbers in Wilmington. She grew up with dozens of cousins, because her mom was the second youngest of 17 kids. She had a difficult father, a man who drank far too much, and frankly, didn’t think that women should be educated. Yet, this young girl, pretty and shy, was driven, was bright, was inquisitive, and she became the first person in her family ever to go to college. In 1956, my mom, Eleanor, graduated from Rice University with a degree in Math, and became a pioneering computer programmer in the 1950s and 1960s.

Imagine a teenage boy, not much younger than many of you here today, growing up in Cuba. Jet-black hair, skinny as a rail, involved in Student Council, and yet Cuba was not at a peaceful time. The dictator, Batista, was corrupt. He was oppressive, and this teenaged boy joins a revolution. He joins a revolution against Batista, he begins fighting, with other teenagers to free Cuba from the dictator. This boy, at 17, finds himself thrown in prison. Finds himself tortured, beaten, and then at age 18, he flees Cuba. He comes to America. Imagine for a second the hope that was in his heart as he rode that ferry-boat across the Key West and got on a Greyhound bus to head to Austin, Texas, to begin washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour, coming to the one land on earth that has welcomed so many millions. When my dad came to America in 1957, he could not have imagined what lay in store for him.

Imagine a young married couple, living together in the 1970s. Neither one of them had a personal relationship with Jesus. They have a little boy, and they are both drinking far too much. They are living a fast life. When I was three, my father decided to leave my mother and me. We were living in Calgary at the time. He got on a plane, and he flew back to Texas, and he decided he didn’t want to be married anymore, and he didn’t want to be a father to his three-year-old son. And yet, when he was in Houston, a friend, a colleague in the oil and gas business, invited him to a Bible Study, invited him to Clay Road Baptist Church, and there my father gave his life to Jesus Christ. And God transformed his heart. And he drove to the airport. He bought a plane ticket and he flew back to be with my mother and me.

There are people who wonder if faith is real. I can tell you that, in my family, there is not a second of doubt, because were it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ, I would have been saved, and I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household.

Imagine another little girl, living in Africa, in Kenya and Nigeria, playing with kids–they spoke Swahili, she spoke English, coming back to California–where her parents had been missionaries in Africa–raised her in the Central Coast. She starts a small business when she’s in grade school, baking bread. She calls it Heidi’s Bakery. She and her brother compete baking bread. They bake thousands of loaves of bread, and go to the local apple orchard, where they sell the bread to people coming to pick apples. She goes on to a career in business, excelling and rising to the highest pinnacles, and then Heidi becomes my wife, and my very best friend in the world. Heidi becomes an incredible mom to our two precious little girls, Caroline and Catherine.

Imagine another teenage boy, being raised in Houston, hearing stories from his dad about prison and torture in Cuba. Hearing stories about how fragile liberty is, beginning to study the United States Constitution, learning about the incredible protections we have in this country that protect the God-given liberty of every American–experiencing challenges at home. In the mid-1980s, oil prices cratered, and his parent’s business goes bankrupt. Heading off to school, more than a 1,000 miles from home, to a place where he knew nobody, where he was alone and scared, and his parents going through bankruptcy, meant there was no financial support from home, so at the age of 17, he went to get two jobs to help pay his way through school. He took over $100,000.00 in school loans–loans I suspect a lot of y’all can relate to–loans that I’ll point out, I just paid off a few years ago.

These are all of our stories. These are who we are as Americans, and yet for so many Americans, the promise of America seems more and more distant. What is the promise or America? The idea that–the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, that our rights–they don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty, and that the purpose of the Constitution that as Thomas Jefferson put it, is to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government. The incredible opportunity of the American dream, what has enabled millions of people from all over the world to come to America with nothing, and to achieve anything. And then the American exceptionalism that has made this nation a clarion voice for freedom in the world, a shining city on a hill. That’s the promise of America. That’s what makes this nation, an indispensable nation, a unique nation in the history of the world. And yet, so many today fear that that promise is unattainable. So many fear that it is slipping away from our hands.

I want to talk to you this morning about reigniting the promise of America: 240 years ago on this very day, a 38-year-old lawyer named Patrick Henry, stood up just a hundred miles from here in Richmond, Virginia and said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” I want to ask each of you to imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives, all across America, rising up together to say in unison “we demand our liberty. 

Today, roughly half of born again Christians aren’t voting. They’re staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values. Today millions of young people are scared, worried about the future, worried about what the future will hold. Imagine millions of young people coming together and standing together, saying “we will stand for liberty.”

Think just how different the world would be. Imagine instead of economic stagnation, booming economic growth. Instead of small businesses going out of business in record numbers, imagine small businesses growing and prospering. Imagine young people coming out of school with four, five, six job offers.

Imagine innovation thriving on the Internet as government regulators and tax collectors are kept at bay and more and more opportunity is created.

Imagine America finally becoming energy self-sufficient as millions and millions of high-paying jobs are created.

Five years ago today, the president signed Obamacare into law. Within hours, Liberty University went to court filing a lawsuit to stop that failed law. Instead of the joblessness, instead of the millions forced into part-time work, instead of the millions who’ve lost their health insurance, lost their doctors, have faced skyrocketing health insurance premiums, imagine in 2017 a new president signing legislation repealing every word of Obamacare.

Imagine health care reform that keeps government out of the way between you and your doctor. and that makes health insurance personal and portable and affordable. that lets every American fill out his or her taxes on a postcard. Imagine abolishing the IRS.

Instead of the lawlessness and the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty, imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders. And imagine a legal immigration system that welcomes and celebrates those who come to achieve the American dream.

Instead of a federal government that wages an assault on our religious liberty, that goes after Hobby Lobby, that goes after the Little Sisters of the Poor, that goes after Liberty University, imagine a federal government that stands for the First Amendment rights of every American.

Instead of a federal government that works to undermine our values, imagine a federal government that works to defend the sanctity of human life and to uphold the sacrament of marriage. Instead of a government that works to undermine our Second Amendment rights, that seeks to ban our ammunition imagine a federal government that protects the right to keep and bear arms of all law-abiding Americans.

Instead of a government that seizes your e-mails and your cell phones, imagine a federal government that protected the privacy rights of every American.

Instead of a federal government that seeks to dictate school curriculum through Common Core, imagine repealing every word of Common Core.

Imagine embracing school choice as the civil rights issue of the next generation that every single child, regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of wealth or ZIP Code, every child in America has the right to a quality education. And that’s true from all of the above, whether is public schools, or charter schools, or private schools, or Christian schools, or parochial schools, or home schools, every child.

Instead of a president who boycotts Prime Minister Netanyahu, imagine a president who stands unapologetically with the nation of Israel.

Instead of a president who seeks to go to the United Nations to end-run Congress and the American people, imagine a president who says “I will honor the Constitution, and under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Imagine a president who says “We will stand up and defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we will call it by its name. We will defend the United States of America.

Now, all of these seem difficult, indeed to some they may seem unimaginable, and yet if you look in the history of our country, imagine it’s 1775, and you and I were sitting there in Richmond listening to Patrick Henry say give me liberty or give me death.

Imagine it’s 1776 and we were watching the 54 signers of the Declaration of Independence stand together and pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to igniting the promise of America.

Imagine it was 1777 and we were watching General Washington as he lost battle, after battle, after battle in the freezing cold as his soldiers with no shoes were dying, fighting for freedom against the most powerful army in the world. That, too, seemed unimaginable.

Imagine it’s 1933 and we were listening to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tell America at a time of crushing depression, at a time of a gathering storm abroad, that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Imagine it’s 1979 and you and I were listening to Ronald Reagan. And he was telling us that we would cut the top marginal tax rates from 70 percent all the way down to 28 percent, that we would go from crushing stagnation to booming economic growth, to millions being lifted out of poverty and into prosperity abundance. That the very day that he was sworn in, our hostages who were languishing in Iran would be released. And that within a decade we would win the Cold War and tear the Berlin Wall to the ground.

That would have seemed unimaginable, and yet, with the grace of God, that’s exactly what happened. From the dawn of this country, at every stage America has enjoyed God’s providential blessing. Over and over again, when we face impossible odds, the American people rose to the challenge. You know, compared to that, repealing Obamacare and abolishing the IRS ain’t all that tough.

The power of the American people when we rise up and stand for liberty knows no bounds. If you’re ready to join a grassroots army across this nation, coming together and standing for liberty, I’m going to ask you to break a rule here today and to take out your cell phones, and to text the word constitution to the number 33733. You can also text imagine. We’re versatile.

Once again, text constitution to 33733. God’s blessing has been on America from the very beginning of this nation, and I believe God isn’t done with America yet.

I believe in you. I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of America, and that is why today I am announcing that I’m running for president of the United States.

It is a time for truth. It is a time for liberty. It is a time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States. I am honored to stand with each and every one of you courageous conservatives as we come together to reclaim the promise of America, to reclaim the mandate, the hope and opportunity for our children and our children’s children. We stand together for liberty.

This is our fight. The answer will not come from Washington. It will come only from the men and women across this country, from men and women, from people of faith, from lovers of liberty, from people who respect the Constitution.

It will only come as it has come at every other time of challenge in this country, when the American people stand together and say we will get back to the principles that have made this country great. We will get back and restore that shining city on a hill that is the United States of America.

Thank you and God bless you.


 There needs to be an expose' on Ted Cruz using intentional mass hypnosis techniques at his Presidential announcement speech. http://www.trevorloudon.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-presidential-announcement-2016-full-transcript-and-video/

 As a Constitutionalist, I have issue with his unConstitutional candidacy as well as especially that of Barack Obama.  But even were we leaving that aside, I urge you to have hypnosis experts look at the transcript and video of Ted Cruz, and judge for yourselves.

The essential pdf link of the html transcript of comparison of techniques already employed by Obama in his 2008 campaigning that will be link cited below is:   http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

 When Ted Cruz illegally announced that he would run for President of the United States, he used a psy-op mass hypnosis gimmick in order to get his speech across, and the trip word used was "Imagine".  Yeah, this lying politician was the Devil's Disciple speaking to a large crowd at Liberty University last week, and he lied and twisted the truth just exactly as you would expect any lecture that you might ever have if you were so lectured by Satan himself, by whatever name he might call himself.  And no matter how much I share the alarm with Conservatives and Alternative Media and Personalities, or Comment in News Sections, the genuine concerns and the citing of Constitutional Law has no effect.  They are either willing conspirators, or they like those who drone after Obama, have been successfully mass hypnotized as weak minded  themselves.  It is really pathetic.
 

Imagine your parents when they were children. 

Imagine a little girl growing up...

Imagine a teenage boy, not much younger than many of you here today...

Imagine a young married couple, living together in the 1970s.

Imagine another little girl, living in Africa, in Kenya and Nigeria, playing with kids...

Imagine another teenage boy...

imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives...

Imagine instead...

 Imagine millions of young people...

Imagine instead of economic stagnation, booming economic growth. 

Imagine innovation thriving...

Imagine America finally becoming energy self-sufficient...

Imagine health care reform...

 Imagine abolishing the IRS.

imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders. 

imagine a legal immigration system that welcomes...

 imagine a federal government that...

 imagine a federal government that...

imagine repealing every word of Common Core.

Imagine embracing school choice as the civil rights issue...

 imagine a president who stands unapologetically ...

Imagine a president who says...

 imagine  it’s 1775...

Imagine it’s 1776...

Imagine  it was 1777...
 
Imagine   it’s 1933...

 Imagine  it’s 1979...


 ...rise up and stand for liberty ...standing for liberty, I’m going to ask you to break a rule here today and to take out your cell phones, and to text the word constitution to the number ..... You can also text imagine. We’re versatile.

 It is a time for truth. It is a time for liberty. It is a time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States.


And what is truth to Ted? Imagine and Constitution are interchangeable, and he wants $$$$ or cold hard cash.   The Constitution in this mass hypnosis speech thus becomes a work of fiction and as a dream passing in the night, as if the Constitution is fake and something that is bypassed by time, the next day, and discarded, as something to be forgotten and cast behind.   Do you really want to give up your rights of free speech, of freedom of religion, of the right to jury trial, of the right to bear arms, of the right to not have to house troops against your will and feed them at your own expense, of the right to an attorney, if arrested  et cetera?   Ted's mass hypnosis speech demands we discard our Bill of Rights.

When Ted States:  imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives, all across America, rising up together to say in unison “we demand our liberty.  ... Imagine millions of young people coming together and standing together, saying “we will stand for liberty.”   It followed the hypnotist's suggestion that  " the purpose of the Constitution ...is to serve as chains...."    

In other words, his goal is to throw off the chains and shackles of the Constitution through those he hypnotizes, and push for what his wife Heidi Nelson Cruz sat on a Council on Foreign Relations Board for: a North American Union, where Canada and the USA and Mexico merge into 1 regional Government of a 10 region one world Government that will be the New World Order.   This is not much different from the 2009 Carbon Taxing Schemes by one of the world's leading think-tanks.
  http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=96857

Effectually, Cruz employs a combination of indirect induction along with instant induction mass hypnosis,
http://www.hypnosisblacksecrets.com/how-to-hypnotize/hypnotic-induction-methods-and-the-ways-to-use-them
http://www.whale.to/c/an_examination_of_obama.html
 for anyone wishing and wanting to believe a lie as a matter of "faith" or what have you, will...if they follow Ted Cruz, than when you campaign for and / or vote for this manipulating Con-artist, Fraudster, nefarious individual, don't take offense when he turns on YOU AND on the nation of Israel.  He cannot be trusted, and is a wolf in sheep's clothing.     

Do your homework on hypnotists and hypnosis and know what is happening with his pacing, leading, anchoring, verbal confusion, repetition, and critical factor bypass; all the same
techniques used by mass hypnotists. 


These hypnosis techniques that Ted Cruz employed are like what Obama did, but on steroids in trying to recreate Obama's 2008 mass hypnosis "presidential" campaigning techniques
http://www.westernjournalism.com/how-obama-literally-hypnotized-america-part-1/

Again, these  31 times Ted Cruz specifically uses "Imagine" in his illegal Presidential announcement, these 31 "imagines" are an intentional and willful abuse that Ted Cruz  is employing at a greater mass hypnosis intensity in the same way Obama employed mass hypnosis techniques as well.

  I have already posted legal and historical proof elsewhere at JTF that shows Cruz is illegal to run for President.  Don't blow this off.  DO the research and nip your support of a guy who will use his illegal candidacy to justify martial law, disbanding Congress, dissolving the Constitution of the United States and of all support of Israel and Christians, citing justification that both parties had an illegal and unconstitutional President elected over them in wilfull discarding of the Constitution, and he is thereby justified to dissolve the Republic and meld it into the NORTH AMERICAN UNION, which the media and all who have sold out to the coming New World Order (all but some 5 to 23 members of Congress presently) will tout and push as a good deal.  And likely, in a post-2016 Cruz elected to the Presidency scenario, in late January 2017 or not much later, all power and water will be shut off everywhere in the USA simultaneously, until the people say they will comply in order to stifle revolution and make who they call the "useless eaters" do most of the peer pressure, ratting out, and even some of the Civil War fighting for them (i.e., the New World Order).

Offline Ephraim Ben Noach

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2015, 09:42:27 PM »
WTF? ARE YOU ON DRUGS? I'm definitely not under hypnosis! And your bullshiite was to long to read.
Ezekiel 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the horn, and the people be not warned, and the sword do come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Offline Ephraim Ben Noach

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2015, 09:49:30 PM »
You are a leftist hypocrite! His mother was Us citizen, living in Canada. If he was not electable....either was Obama, or McCann.....
Ezekiel 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the horn, and the people be not warned, and the sword do come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2015, 12:55:18 AM »
 Ephraim Ben Noach,
I am a Right wing Conservative and a Constitutionalist. 

Now if you want to argue Ted is a Natural Born Citizen, YOU would have to be on drugs, sir, to say a Canadian born citizen NATURALLY becomes a United States Citizen, rather than an operation of Law.  And if by an operation of LAW only, then it is in no way "natural". 

TED CRUZ is CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.  THAT IS A LEGAL FACT!!!   


We do not need a Presidential candidate or President so badly, that we have to go outside the pool of two citizen parents at their birth on US Soil for a President, regardless of the candidate's ethnicity.

So just what makes Ted Cruz, a jus soli born CANADIAN NATIONAL who retained his BIRTH citizenship (and for all we know STILL POSSESSES it despite claiming only months ago he would junk it) as being in any way eligible to the U.S. Presidency? Nothing.

 In fact, by example, we have the ineligibility of F.D.R. Jr. to guide us on the matter. The N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 - 4, by legal example demonstrated that legally Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House” since his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate

"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...." US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414


In 1787 and then in March of 1791, when the Constitution went into effect, the voting citizenry were males 21 and above.  Hence citizen fathers age 21 and above were a requirement  for any child to be a "Natural Born Citizen"  at the time the Constitution was written and passed.  Black Revolutionary War soldiers and free black land owners in small numbers, as well as Jews, were part of that voting citizenry, and some Latins were citizens of port cities like Philadelphia (though not all renounced foreign citizenships as a famous Supreme Court Case Decision in 1797, U.S. v. Villato 2 U.S. 370 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/370/case.html    proved) in case you don't know your 1780's and 1790s U.S. history. See also John Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter 6:59.

 A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off.

      Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government.  In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution.  See also the Senate debate over the first section of what would be the 14th Amendment and what they intended as an allegiance that was still yet lesser in strength than the natural born citizen clause:

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866  The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
"subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means. ...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

If Ted Cruz was never subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, then he was NEVER a Citizen who was Naturally Born exclusively as our citizen or in any way a United States Natural Born Citizen, not owing allegiance to anybody else and completely under the jurisdiction of the United States of America only, at birth.

At Birth Ted Cruz is Canadian first, a Cuban national through is father secondly, and in a distant third, by operation of law (INA 1952) an U.S. citizen whose internationally recognized natural born citizenship rests in Cuba through his father, NOT the United States.


New Jersey Attorney Mario Apuzzo has excellent attorney at law perspectives on this as well:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html

See also: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html



Question: Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of that document, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?

Since Obama is NOT President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, we currently  have no de facto President by operation of the Constitution of the United States, but some kind of alien usurper and oligarchy (through him) in place, Cruz would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as well, and moreso, could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!

The Constitution expresses 5 citizen terms, of which Natural Born Citizen is the most exclusive and stringent.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

For those who select aliens to the Constitution to USURP the Presidency of the United States and Overthrow the Constitution of the United States, and PRETEND they are not doing so by backing Ted Cruz. Answer these legal questions.

1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law (that can be affirmed as so by an example of those having Article III standing and suing them) or not?

2 Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.5 in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth?

4. Does a United States Natural Born allegiance also under a Constitution where the paternal citizenship governed the nationality of the child was in effect when it was written, does follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not? And if the claim if no longer, where is the Constitutional Amendment that alters or denies what the founders intended, as there is NO Amendment that states anywhere that a Citizen Mother can give birth to a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in or out of the United States with an alien father, and alter what the Constitution clearly under the laws in effect clearly forbad?

By example as to what relevant paternal power was in effect legally, less than 30 years after the Constitution was ratified,
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820: "When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The CIVIL LAW DETERMINED THE CONDITION OF THE SON BY THAT OF THE FATHER. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.”

5. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 – 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?

6. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5 “natural born citizen” clause or not?

7. Is not the Constitutional Intent of the Constitution the following definition in which
“…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
and the debate regarding the meaning behind the 14th Amendment was clearly specified in The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 where Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred that “The provision is, ‘that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’… What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
…It cannot be said of any…who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ "
or not?
[The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment is at:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
see Part 4 (column 2), page 2890, Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893,
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895]


Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.”


Ted Cruz was born in CANADA, and has a father who was a Cuban National at the time of his birth there...and was reared as a Canadian birth citizen at least 3 years in Canada, and REFUSED to renounce his Canadian citizenship before 18 and before age 21.  How can an alien born alien citizen claim to be Naturally part of another country when the 90% of the world's nations recognize paternal power governing foreign births, and a Treaty with Canada places limitations and restrictions upon the child, as well as Cruz fails the Wong Kim Ark test of sole birth and sole claim of citizenship to the U.S. only as well as fails even the most basic 14th Amendment Section 1 intent at the time that was passed AFTER the Civil War?   It would be like saying any animal or plant which is indigenous to a country is no longer so if you added USA produced Miracle Gro to the seedling.  Ephraim Ben Noach you argue against science, and against Laws of Nature in the Almighty's Creation.

The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition:“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59

Under Constitutional Intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Article 2.1.5, the successful US Government Attorney of later Wong Kim Ark fame shows us that the Paternal Link (that through the Father's Status) is essential in determining who is or is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth." – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins


In 1833, in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473
“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen [to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War] to become President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties."   

And what was Cruz until allegedly last summer, if at all he ever gave it up?  A foreign Citizen, a Canadian, who is NOT allowed to have foreign birth citizenship into his 40s et cetera and be able to run for President, because such a one is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen but one who by definition will have foreign influence weaved into executive councils and duties.  If his father was a World War II Austrian Nazi who served in the SS for 8 years of distinguished service, and his mother was an American Citizen, though born in Canada, I seriously doubt any Jewish individual would be so sloppily defending a Heinrich Mayer who operated under the same citizenship circumstances as a Ted Cruz.  You would say it was a no brainer and a slam dunk.  Start with asking yourself why that is the case.

The term Natural Born Citizen isn't just a term thrown out there, it has a purpose that was intensely debated and worded so as to protect us from foreign influence, be they British, Papal, or anything else foreign born and having foreign favor to first over that of the PEOPLE of the United States of America.
 
Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ 12 http://supreme.justia.com/us/121/1/case.html
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument."


Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189 http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html states:
" ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."


Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571 http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
“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. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”


Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”


Ted Cruz was NOT born in the United States of parents who were its citizens, and therefore is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen.

Just because we have one USURPER illegally and unconstitutionally wielding power he legally can have VOIDED OUT Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ page 180 because he is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen (i.e., Obama), does not mean we should let the second major party finalize the destruction of the Constitution by also placing their own illegal in office, so they can dissolve the Republic for a full blown Communist-Socialist dictatorship replacement one.  Ted Cruz openly admits to being foreign born with a publication of proof by his Canadian birth certificate,but because the United States Congress and the G.W. Bush Administration has openly DEFIED the Constitution and placed a foreign usurper in Barack Obama in office, who by his own claim (until 2007 at Harvard as well as through Acton and Dystel, etc.) was born in Kenya, who in May 2009
http://www.wnd.com/files/110525nsisbulletin.pdf
affirmed his Kenyan birth diplomatically through official U.S. Department of State recognition of the same with Kenya, whose birth in Kenya is affirmed repeatedly by officials of Kenya's Government both formally and informally,  NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT  Thursday, 25th March, 2010  The House met at 2.30 p.m. p. 31 ...2nd paragraph  [Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]: "...how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion." http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25 
and whose birth in Kenya was repeated as affirmed especially when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate  http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm   ...then since the Dems have their own illegal and usurper in open defiance of the U.S. Constitution in office under color of the "race card" as their "authority", the Republicans might as well have their own Bilderburger spouse controlled illegal up next to hand away this Republic and finalize its destruction into international obscurity as a world power "that once was" and will be no more? Hell NO! Let's stop illegals from aspiring to the Presidency regardless of race or skin color NOW!  Obama needs to be voided, and Cruz needs to have his U.S. Citizenship claims revoked and have his treasonous (  )  kicked back to Canada where his birth citizenship rests and where he belongs. 

 As for Congress winking at the Law and ignoring the Constitution regarding the Natural Born Citizenship requirement clause in the Constitution:

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272  "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)@442   “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180 "... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,  supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,
 that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts,
 as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."


U.S. Constitution, Article. VI. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...."

 The Law is equal for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or what have you.  Rubio and Jindal are also unqualified for POTUS, just so you know.  No U.S. Citizen Father at the time of birth, no U.S. soil birth also, no Constitutionality to run for POTUS...this is for everybody.  We should not give ethnicities an affirmative action pass because it discriminates against those with mental defects like retards or those not having sufficient mental capacity from having an affirmative action boost as well, never mind Eric Holder once wanted to exclusively hire mentally deficients and retards into the Department of Justice just a few years ago (a bit of trivia for you that you can also research and find is a factual statement).

As for the hypnosis speech done by Cruz...do your homework, research the issue.  Most Germans in the late 1930s would have refused to believe they were hypnotized by Hitler, but he employed exactly those methods in many of his speeches.   Most blacks and leftists refuse to believe Obama hypnotized them, but it is already common knowledge and well researched that he did just that in the second half of his 2008 Presidential campaigning from June 2008 onward.  You can start with 

AN EXAMINATION OF OBAMA’S USE OF HIDDEN HYPNOSIS TECHNIQUES IN HIS SPEECHES
http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf
 
Is Obama Using Hypnosis in His Speech?
http://www.hypnosisblacksecrets.com/covert-hypnosis/obama-hypnosis-techniques

Hypnotic Inductions and How To Use Them Properly
http://www.hypnosisblacksecrets.com/how-to-hypnotize/hypnotic-induction-methods-and-the-ways-to-use-them

http://www.brazzil.com/articles/195-august-2008/10100-obamas-psychological-blackmail-has-been-done-before-in-brazil-with-success.html
"… not to win over voters through rational persuasion, but to weaken, shock, and stupefy them to the point of making them accept every loss, every humiliation, every defeat, just in order not to contradict the assumed moral obligation to elect him, it being of little importance whether he actually is an enemy in disguise.”

 as your comparative and research starting point and go from there.   
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 01:07:40 AM by Brianroy »

Offline Zelhar

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10005
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2015, 06:00:44 AM »
Why would he bother with h hypnosis when he can remote control your mind with the secrete probe that the little gray aliens installed inside you?

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2015, 10:20:06 AM »
Trance Inductions
What are you, some 12 year old? 

Afraid to examine Cruz's "speeches word by word, hand gesture by hand gesture, tone, pauses, body language, and
proves his use of covert hypnosis intended only for licensed therapists on consenting patients" are you?  Uh huh.  Find a licensed hypnotist and ask them for yourself regarding this Presidendential announcement by Cruz, and ask THEM if there is anything to his use of any of the following.

- Hypnotic Anchoring
- Pacing and Leading
- Pacing, Distraction and Utilization
- Critical Factor Bypass
- Stacking Language Patterns
- Preprogrammed Response Adaptation
- Linking Statements/ Causality Bridges
- Secondary Hidden Meanings/Imbedded
Suggestions
- Emotion Transfer
- Non-Dominant Hemisphere Programming

And then ask them about Erickson.  That is...if you are not some 12 year old who isn't mature enough to keep up with the conversation and doing a bit of mans world research.

Offline Zelhar

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10005
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2015, 01:50:25 PM »
This is mental asylum stuff. Some people just want to believe in insane theories and instead of using rational thought they use delusions, junk science and pseudo scientific lingo. I know you can't help yourself.

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2015, 12:53:24 AM »
Regarding Ted Cruz, Vattel states what amounts to be a rebuke of Ted Cruz's and Obama's birth conditions, making the claim of their illegitimacy open.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.



When Ted Cruz was interviewed by the GOP Texas State Committee in his running for state office, he was stated as saying the ff. ( temporarily protecting the identity of the witness, for the moment confidential says JB Williams http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm   )


  "(Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”


Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”


Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”


Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”



Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don't have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”


Cruz: “I would agree.”



Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”


Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”


Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”   "


Did you get that part above, when Ted Cruz was asked what the definition of a [United States] Natural Born Citizen is today, he correctly answered
“Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” 
That is, two citizen parents of the country you are born in, and being born on that same soil your parents are citizens of, so that it is only NATURAL (not by operation of law or any means of decision on your part) that you are its born citizen as if a citizen of and only of and forever in that one nation as having only that one citizenship.  Period.

And now, what?  His wife Heidi and the Council on Foreign Relations gave him an interview and told him, what, "Ah...the Constitution constismuushion.  The hell with it.  Ah, skip that.  You want to run?  We'll make it happen.  Just know you are beholden to us, and you know what we want after we get you in, or else."  Was that it? 

I'll tell ya...when it comes to Cruz, you guys put the blinders on and refuse to do your homework.   Why is that?  Don't buy something with just a poke because it looks good.  Give it the same scrutiny as a lamb for pesach. 



Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Presidential Eligibility Tutorial Challenge
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2015, 03:10:22 AM »
I see that no one is up to the task of being able to rationally explain why Ted Cruz should be
exempted from either the United States Constitution or his own words.

Okay.  Let me take the forum to a 501 level. 
Your homework assignment is to read up on what this whole Natural Born Citizen
issue really entails in the scope of its definition at the academic level.
The material is the " Presidential Eligibility Tutorial
Copyright (©) 2009-2014 Stephen Tonchen"
 at
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

You then apply the same standards to Ted Cruz or anyone else,
regardless of race or politics or religion.

The question is:  can you?


Offline Zelhar

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10005
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2015, 04:47:29 AM »
Let me guess, you support Rand Paul, am I correct?

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Reply part 1
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2015, 01:51:34 PM »
Is that all you got Zellhar..a duhhhhh, I think he must be working for a candidate I don't like?  Really? 

I have NO candidate to promote...only the Constitution of the United States.  Which by the way, does NOT apparently matter to those who back Ted Cruz (or even Marco Rubio now, for that matter).    So why don't you have the ability to defend Cruz according to the Supreme Law of the Land, or at least offer something intelligent to reason why you with osmotic vacuacy offer only, "Let me guess, you support Rand Paul, am I correct?"  For Presidential candidate, Zelhar, no.  Does he have the right to run?  Legally yes.  Personally, if he and Hillary are the only two choices come 2016, I doubt many at JTF will be casting a Hillary vote since she sleeps with a Muslim radical dedicated to destroying Israel as her gay lover, and would be her most trusted advisor.   



Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Jr. 

TED CRUZ is
CONSTITUTIONALLY
ILLEGAL
TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.

THAT IS A LEGAL FACT!!! 


Even Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Jr. knows this since when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Texas as stated and quoted in
THE END OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY   By J.B. Williams   March 29, 2015     NewsWithViews.com    http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm
In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”


Do you REALLY want to push a Canadian Born citizen with paternal power citizenship claim at birth to Cuba illegally into the U.S. Presidency with the current usurper in office, and set a 2 major party precedent to discard the current Constitution of the Republic?

We do not need a Presidential candidate or President so badly, that we have to go outside the pool of two citizen parents at their birth on US Soil for a President, regardless of the candidate's ethnicity.

So just what makes Ted Cruz, a jus soli born CANADIAN NATIONAL who retained his BIRTH citizenship (and for all we know STILL POSSESSES it despite claiming only months ago he would junk it) as being in any way eligible to the U.S. Presidency? Not a damn thing.


In fact, by example, we have the ineligibility of F.D.R. Jr. to guide us on the matter. The N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 - 4, by legal example demonstrated that legally Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House” since his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate.



Marco Rubio

MARCO RUBIO IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY
ILLEGAL
TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.


Marco Rubio was born to two Cuban immigrants in Miami, Florida, who did not naturalize to the United States as its citizens until 1975.  Until such naturalization of the parents occurred,  any children born in the United States to Mario and Oria Rubio, would be born as dual citizens. Marco would only be a United States Citizen by operation of Law, NOT by operation of nature, because at anytime up until Mario and Oria Rubio took the oath to become United States Citizens, they could have returned to Cuba or simply moved to any other country they wished as Cuban exiles, retaining their heritage and national identity as Cubans only.   Marco's maternal grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia legally immigrated with the intent to naturalize, returned to Cuba, then re-entered the United States as an operated as illegal alien or "undocumented worker" during the years of 1962 to 1966.   Marco was NOT born of United States Citizens at the time of his birth, and there was no 1802 statute that allowed his parents to the age of 21 to naturalize from the time of an alleged U.S. soil birth to make any claim as to a U.S. soil birth designated as an judicial exemption in how "natural born citizen " might possibly be interpreted as Senator Bayard related to A.P. Hinman over the issue of President Chester A. Arthur. 

 Senate of the United States.
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881. A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York. DEAR SIR:-In response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term" natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S. The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor. Yours respectfully, T. F. BAYARD
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States

In fact, if we consider that naturalization is an operation of law, and that by naturalization or by operation of Law a child is accepted as a U.S. Citizen rather than by natural circumstances involving indigenous obviousness in nature as to birth location and obvious species, then we must also realize that technically  Senator Bayard never exempts Chester A. Arthur, because if a law has to be forced to resolve an issue, it is in no way natural that a child be a sole allegiance born citizen as is required by the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". 


"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
 
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5


"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used
and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth
to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414


"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."
John Jay's letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787
which led to the "Natural Born Citizen " clause being eventually introduced into the Constitution we now have.  John Jay was formerly a President of the Confederacy of the United States, which government was dissolved in 1787, and then became the first Chief Justice in this Republic of the United States after the Confederacy was dissolved.


In 1789, if you read David Ramsay, you will note that in the United States as the U.S. Constitution was undergoing ratification by the States, VOTING CITIZENS, or men above the age of 21, gave their children the right to be Natural Born Citizens.  Fathers cannot be excluded from having a United States Citizenship if the child is to be born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, because United States Natural Born Citizens may NOT have any allegiance by birth to foreign states as Obama did to the United Kingdom and Kenya at birth and remained so until age 23 and regained his Kenyan Citizenship by U.S. intervention into the Constitution of Kenya of 2010
http://www.kenyalaw.org:8181/exist/kenyalex/actview.xql?actid=Const2010#KE/CON/Const2010/chap_3
 that reinstates Obama and any born to at least one Kenyan national parent abroad at any time), and as Rafael Edward Cruz had to Canada and Cuba at birth and remained so until age 43 (or so we are told he gave up his Canadian Citizenship), or to Cuba as Marco Rubio had at the time of his birth and for 4 years after. 

Without a U.S. Citizen Father, it is impossible to have any child born as a United States Natural Born Citizen.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html


Vattel states in regard to the Law of Nations in effect (which John Jay, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and other founders read from the 1760s to the 1790s)

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.




The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen".  In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of  the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli  (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.
 But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of
"Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :

"No one has the power / ability / authority
  to leave / reject / disown himself  from the Father's Land."      [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]

From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old.  If he was not at least 21, technically (under constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.

As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote.  The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism.  For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue.

To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born.  This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.

Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough.  Some claim that the children of Citizens is enough in itself, but the term "citizens" means both parents must be United States citizen parents, as was stated similarly by the Court in Minor v. Happersett decades later.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.

That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) Only those children having and being the child of to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth that had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.

In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."

 This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".   He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". 

In other words, the father "of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son" was never to be a foreign national.



Further, that the Father be a United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth was viewed then by the Court to be an absolute in  The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290
- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"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 indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.

Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

So while we see that the term “parents” is used, the “rights” and “condition” of Citizenship is passed on through the Citizen Father (or the presumption of one, in case of bastardization when he is presumed a US Citizen in absentia from the Citizen Mother).

Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."


And with the  Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604) , the operation of Law still required the Father alone to confirm a child's citizenship.   This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993 which stated:
         "All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,  whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof,  are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless.   The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding.  With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years.  But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution.

On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was  in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawal by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing.

Further, as of  June 22, 1874,  six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:
"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance.  By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."
US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874

Dual Citizenship at birth denies one the claim of being a 14th Amendment Citizen AND that of being a United States Natural Born Citizen.

Concerning the 14th Amendment by the authority of the author of the first clause insertion of having no allegiance to any foreign power at birth, Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), states:

“ (I) find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], 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 …”


The American Legal Review issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (the same who co-prosecuted the Wong Kim Ark landmark citizenship case of 1898) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.

 George D. Collins asked the question: “are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”

Mr. Collins cited Mr. Vattel in probing for the answer, and while he quoted
"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens."
     He also quoted that "The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

His answer at the end of the article:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins


Breckinridge Long in his 1916 Assessment of Charles Evan Hughes
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68922032/Natural-Born-Citizen-Within-Meaning-of-Constitution-by-Breckenridge-Long-Democrat-1916
own Presidential aspirations would agree:

"The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.”

 The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “

Native born” does not mean quite the same thing."



Rafael Edawrd "Ted" Cruz, Jr. and Barack Hussein Obama II (aka. Barry Soetoro) FAIL to measure up to that very basic sole allegiance to the United States at birth, and possession of a United States Citizen Father, or of an operation of NATURE which allows for NO PREFERENCE but a design and natural order that they can ONLY BE United States Citizens at birth and nothing else.    Marco Rubio would have to result to the Wong Kim Ark defense, which demonstrates that from birth to age 21 he had no other allegiance interests, and lived solely in the United States. 

On May 25, 1934, Congress did NOT amend the Constitution of the United States by 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States, but they did pass a lesser law that has been misapplied.  That Act of May 24, 1934 cannot be used so as to deny the Constitutional effectiveness of paternal citizenship regarding the Natural Born Citizen clause, because all laws must conform to the Constitution of the United States, or they are without legality. 

In  Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) Oral Arguments, the acknowledgement that a mother can pass citizenship rights was referred to and reads:

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.
       I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.

Mr. Kneedler: It would be subject to judicial review, and under the facially legitimate bona fide standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel and Fiallo, it would be necessary to ask what Congress was up to in a situation like that, so we are not suggesting that there is...

Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?

Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband. So we are not suggesting that.

The transcript and tape is available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument

Justice Ginsburg refers us back to the Act of May 24, 1934.

In other words, beginning on May 25, 1934, both fathers and mothers were able to pass on citizenship without prejudice. However, the condition of "Natural Born Citizenship", of being born with a citizen father of the same country you were born in, remained unaffected.  Only now, it was absolutely essential that BOTH father and mother be citizens of the same country you were born in, that is in the jurisdiction of the United States, in order to be a United States Natural Born Citizen.

By example to that, we see that in Montana v. Kennedy, 366 US 308 (1961),   http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/308/case.html
 that United States  citizenship was inherited via the father only (or the presumption of the father) until 1934:

Page 365 U.S. 309
…In 1874, Congress reenacted two statutes which seem to defy complete reconciliation. R.S. § 2172, a reenactment
Page 366 U. S. 310
of § 4 of an Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 155), provided that
"children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof. . . ."
(Emphasis added.) R.S. § 1993, substantially a reenactment of § 1 of an Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604), provided that
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
Page 366 U.S. 312
...Whatever may have been the reason for the 1874 reenactment of the Act of 1802 as R.S. § 2172, we find nothing in that action which suggests a purpose to reverse the structure of inherited citizenship that Congress created in 1855 and recognized and reaffirmed until 1934. On this basis and in the light of our precedents, we hold that, at the time of petitioner's birth in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship status for foreign-born children of American parents. That statute cannot avail this petitioner, who is the foreign-born child of an alien father.

Again, when one views what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, regardless of the Act of May 24, 1934, one CANNOT exclude the father from the equation, or the fact of one sole national allegiance at birth.  Rafael Edward Cruz as well as Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), have neither qualification of a United States Citizen Father nor  any non-fraudulent proof of a United States soil birth that could ever be accepted in a U.S. Court of Law as evidence.             

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) @ 448 - 450
http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/437/case.html

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. "

It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible...

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in @ 22 U. S. 188, well declared:

"As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."

...As said by Mr. Justice Matthews in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478:

"The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

And by MR. JUSTICE GRAY in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654

"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."




Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Reply to Zelhar, part 2
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2015, 01:52:05 PM »
 A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN at the time the Constitution was written and being ratified is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off.   ( See also John Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter 6:59,  cited further on, below).

      Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government.  In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution.  See also the Senate debate over the first section of what would be the 14th Amendment and what they intended as an allegiance that was still yet lesser in strength than the natural born citizen clause:

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866  The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment  http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
"subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means. ...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

At Birth Ted Cruz is Canadian first, a Cuban national through is father secondly, and in a distant third, by operation of law (INA 1952) an U.S. citizen whose internationally recognized natural born citizenship rests in Cuba through his father, NOT the United States.  At birth, Marco Rubio's nationality follows that of his father, Cuba, and is a dual citizen with the United States, a duality of citizenship PROHIBITED to Natural Born Citizens under the Constitution because his parents were NOT Citizens of the United States at the time he was born in Miami, Florida, USA.


New Jersey Attorney Mario Apuzzo has excellent attorney at law perspectives on this, especially regarding Ted Cruz,  as well:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html

See also:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

                 
And it is not just Attorney Apuzzo who has excellent points on this issue.  See also:

 http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd670.htm

 http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams296.htm
                     http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams297.htm

And for an academic level of information, use  intelligent reason to apply Stephen Tonchen' s Presidential Eligibility Tutorial to that of Canadian by birth Rafael Edward Cruz, Marco Rubio, or any other usurper wannabe that comes down the pike to say they are running for the U.S. Presidency and the hell with Constitutional Law  regarding the Natural Born Citizen clause:
  http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm



Question: Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of that document, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?

Since Obama is NOT President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, we have no President, but some kind of alien usurper and oligarchy (through him) in place, Cruz would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as well, and moreso, could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!

The Constitution expresses 5 citizen terms, of which Natural Born Citizen is the most exclusive and stringent.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

Do not pretend that by backing Ted Cruz you somehow do not violate the Constitution  and aid its enemies to Overthrow the Constitution of the United States by backing Ted Cruz.

1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law (that can be affirmed as so by an example of those having Article III standing and suing them) or not?

2 Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.5 in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth?

3. Does a United States Natural Born allegiance also under a Constitution where the paternal citizenship governed the nationality of the child was in effect when it was written, does follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not? And if the claim if no longer, where is the Constitutional Amendment that alters or denies what the founders intended, as there is NO Amendment that states anywhere that a Citizen Mother can give birth to a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in or out of the United States with an alien father, and alter what the Constitution clearly under the laws in effect clearly forbad?

By example, again,  as to what relevant paternal power was in effect legally, less than 30 years after the Constitution was ratified,
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820: "When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The CIVIL LAW DETERMINED THE CONDITION OF THE SON BY THAT OF THE FATHER. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.”

4. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 – 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?

5. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5 “natural born citizen” clause or not?

6. Is not the Constitutional Intent of the Constitution the following definition in which
“…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
and the debate regarding the meaning behind the 14th Amendment was clearly specified in The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 where Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred that “The provision is, ‘that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’… What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
…It cannot be said of any…who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ "
or not?
[The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment is at:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
see Part 4 (column 2), page 2890, Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893,
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895]


Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.”


"Ted"  Rafael Cruz Jr.  was born in CANADA, and has a father who was a Cuban National at the time of his birth there...and was reared as a Canadian birth citizen at least 3 years in Canada, and REFUSED to renounce his Canadian citizenship before 18 and before age 21.

Further, Ted Cruz's father, Rafael Cruz Sr., is on record saying that at some time in the past he naturalized himself as a Canadian Citizen.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration


It would be nice to know precisely what year that was because it may make Rafael Cruz Jr. unmistakably a Canadian Natural Born Citizen under the Laws of Canada in 1971.  Further, did the mother of Rafael Cruz, Jr. naturalize to Canada along with her husband at any time prior to Rafael "Ted" Cruz Jr.'s birth as well?


The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition:“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be  fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59


In 1833, we also read from the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473

“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen [to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War] to become President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties."




Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ 12 http://supreme.justia.com/us/121/1/case.html
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument."

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189 http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html states:
" ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."


Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571 http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
“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. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”



Again,
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”



Just because we have one USURPER illegally and unconstitutionally wielding power he legally can have VOIDED OUT Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ page 180 because he is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen (i.e., Obama), does not mean we should let the second major party finalize the destruction of the Constitution by also placing their own illegal in office, so they can dissolve the Republic for a full blown Communist-Socialist dictatorship replacement one.  Ted Cruz openly admits to being foreign born with a publication of proof by his Canadian birth certificate,but because the United States Congress and the G.W. Bush Administration has openly DEFIED the Constitution and placed a foreign usurper in Barack Obama in office, who by his own claim (until 2007 at Harvard as well as through Acton and Dystel, etc.) was born in Kenya, who in May 2009

http://www.wnd.com/files/110525nsisbulletin.pdf

affirmed his Kenyan birth diplomatically through official U.S. Department of State recognition of the same with Kenya, whose birth in Kenya is affirmed repeatedly by officials of Kenya's Government both formally and informally,
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT  Thursday, 25th March, 2010  The House met at 2.30 p.m. p. 31 ...2nd paragraph

 [Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]:


" ...how could a young man born here in Kenya,
who is not even a native American,
become the President of America?
It is because they did away with exclusion."
  http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25   

and whose birth in Kenya was repeated as affirmed especially when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate  http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm   

...then since the Dems have their own illegal and usurper in open defiance of the U.S. Constitution in office under color of the "race card" as their "authority", the Republicans might as well have their own Council on Foreign Relations (anti-U.S. Sovereignty secret society billing themselves as masters in the New World Order where Ted's own wife Heidi advocates the US - Canada - Mexico as merging into Region 1 of a One World Government)?   

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/pubfiles/McKibbin_and_Wilcoxen%2C_The_economic_and_environmental_effects.pdf


That the United States should merge with Canada and Mexico has been pushed  by the Council on Foreign Relations at the United Nations itself since 1991 under the Soviet Communist 100 year economic subversive agenda called "The Program" in which environmentalism would be the back door to push Communitarianism and Marxist-Leninism through the back door and stealth if the direct means of propaganda did not convince the nations that they should all be useful idiot slaves under totalitarian Communist Socialist controls, a theme I personally strongly suspect was re-adopted by Howard Dean and the Democratic Party in 2005 after John Kerry lost to George Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election.

As for Congress winking at the Law and ignoring the Constitution regarding the Natural Born Citizenship requirement clause in the Constitution:

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272  "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."



Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)@442   “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”



Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180 "... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.



Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,  supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,  that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts,  as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."


U.S. Constitution, Article. VI. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...."

  The Law is equal for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or what have you.

Do YOU really want to be on record as committing a WILLFUL and INTENTIONAL  Violation of the Constitution in Promoting Ted Cruz to a job the United States Constitution Forbids him?

 Do you really want to help destroy the Republic by promoting a Council on Foreign Relations front man who is handled by his wife Heidi the way the Communist-Socialists and Muslims operate through Valerie Jarrett to the current Usurper Obama?


You no longer, after reading this, have the excuse to plead ignorance of the Law or what destruction to the Republic that you will be doing by supporting a Ted Cruz ILLEGAL Candidacy. 

Come up with at least an intelligent comeback than some "sitcom" idiot box one-liner, Zelhar.  I mean...really.   Good grief!

Offline Zelhar

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10005
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2015, 02:37:06 PM »
You believe that Ted Cruz is not constitutionally a natural born citizen, ok I suppose. By the way if he does clinch the nomination and get elected, it's a whole different constitutional question if once elected he can be removed from office based on that supposed "violation". Anyways, the issue you originally raised and which is a real quackery is that "mass hypnosis" claim.

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2015, 05:34:20 PM »

Posted by: Zelhar
« on: Today at 02:37:06 PM » Insert Quote
You believe that Ted Cruz is not constitutionally a natural born citizen, ok I suppose. By the way if he does clinch the nomination and get elected, it's a whole different constitutional question if once elected he can be removed from office based on that supposed "violation". Anyways, the issue you originally raised and which is a real quackery is that "mass hypnosis" claim.





It may seem quackery to those who have not read up on this hypnosis angle, seen con artists and actual hypnotists work this stuff effectively, and so forth,
but have you ever asked yourself how Germany could have been so enraptured with Adolf Hitler?  And what about how people have gone literally nuts worshiping Obama   on the same level of deification as any German National Socialist? 

If there is only one single starting point that you would want to use to see if Obama did or did not commit acts of attempting mass hypnosis with a common repetition, then follow the light shine upon you, give you an epiphany, and you have no willful choice but to obey the hypnotic command that Obama used in early 2008 and before (according to the Washington Post), "I have to vote for Barack Obama".   


January 6, 2008: Washington Post "Swept up in the Obama Moment"
    "An Obama event is not a friendly place for cynics, skeptics, or the chronically unimpressed. This is revival-tent stuff. The senator from Illinois used the metaphor of a religious conversion: "I am going to try to be so persuasive, so that those of you who are still wavering...will suddenly come to the conclusion -- a light beam will shine through -- will light you up -- and you will experience an epiphany -- I have to vote for Barack!"


See Campaign video at 31 seconds to 45 seconds
https://youtu.be/mopkn0lPzM8

Lebanon Opera House, New Hampshire. January 7, 2008.
Obama:  "My job is to be so persuasive that if there's anybody left out there who is still not sure whether they will vote, or is still not clear who they will vote for, that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."


http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/seeing_the_light_in_south_caro.php
Seeing the Light in South Carolina    By Gal Beckerman   JANUARY 25, 2008
     "I’d just driven back from attending a Barack Obama event 120 miles south in the gym of North Charleston High School (“Home of the Cougars!”). It was everything everyone said it would be, more like a revival than a political event. Even though Obama was an hour and a half late, the largely African-American crowd’s enthusiasm did not wane. People stamped their feet. Two little girls got up on stage and led the crowd in a chant of Obama’s name. The local field coordinator, Kevin, a short white guy with glasses and a goatee, got so excited that even his warm-up speech sounded southern fried. “We’ve been told too many times to wait,” he screamed. “That our time had not yet come!” Another speaker, stalling for time, mistakenly referred to the senator as “Bomrock Obrama” and was nearly driven from the gym by the booing, restless audience. When the senator did arrive, he gave a pitch-perfect stump speech, surfing the enthusiasm of the pulsating gym. When he took the stage he said, “At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you’ll say, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”

If that epiphany never came, you couldn’t blame Obama."


Newsweek January 31, 2008,   
"Obama: For Now, Perspiration Over Inspiration", by Andrew Romano
     "Reading the recent flurry of stories about Barack Obama--the Clinton-slayer! the youth candidate! the next Kennedy!--it'd be easy to imagine that his campaign is all inspiration and little perspiration at this point, with rainbows and starshine bursting from the tailpipe of his tour bus. Obama both lampoons and slyly encourages the perception. In New Hampshire and South Carolina, for example, the senator was fond of telling audiences that "at some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you’ll say, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’"

That at least you are willing to consider the legality of Ted Cruz and examine the evidence and see that it IS AN ISSUE that needs to be legally and peacefully dealt with is a good thing.  Thank you kindly for that.  It is very much an appreciated reaction and reply.     

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ 180 states that
“a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” and
“in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land,
the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;
and not the laws of the United States generally,
 but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution,have that rank.”

It is my hope that we can expose the whole issue of Obama's fraud and usurpation by exposing Rafael Edward Cruz, Jr.,
and bring about a voiding out of the entire illegal Presidency / the entire usurpation of the Presidency
by Barack Obama and make his sorry tail an asterisk in the history books
as a Con-man who got busted, and was sentenced to whatever severe penalty a
Congressionally appointed and thus legally sanctioned Impeachment trial could hand out.
Be Obama sentenced to hanging for treason and high crimes,
or be he sentenced to permanent life without parole and without visitation
in a super-max isolation ward, whichever a proper and duly appointed Chief Justice led court
would dish out is fine with me. 
But voiding out everything he ever passed or signed is a MUST.  And as for the riots
that will come...that will be the fault of those who illegally got Obama illegally into the Presidency in the first place,
and it will be a long list of criminal co-conspirators for such a list of indictments for a Special Prosecutor to ferret out,
even more intense and numerous than what we experienced in the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. 
Of course, what should happen and what will actually happen will likely not be anywhere near to being the same thing. 
But alas, one can only hope. 

Whoever gets the Presidency next, if we still have a Republic, be he black or Latino or Jew or Asian or Caucasian or what have you,
he or she needs to have had two United States Citizen Parents at birth on U.S. Soil or U.S. Territorial jurisdiction / sovereignty,
and have only held one sole nationality from birth to the Presidency.  I don't think that is really too much to ask for as well as fulfilling
all the other requirements we expect our President (and vice-President, per the 12th Amendment) to have.


In the 12th Amendment, when it says, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", that includes that the Vice-President must also be a United States Natural Born Citizen.    This means we must also be vigilant in demanding a Constitutionally stringent choosing of all Vice Presidents as carefully as we would demand that of a Constitutionally qualified President. 

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
The Communist Party USA and the Globalists push how that people ought to watch and get exited about a Bob Avakian
speech that was posted on Youtube in 2009.  The clip is titled:  "Imagine...a New society".



https://youtu.be/NheUhwsoC24





It too, is billed as the "Imagine" speech, and precedes that of Ted Cruz's to Liberty University, which was
a mandatory attendance.  But the Communist Party USA "Imagine" speech is but a section from a longer
speech on why Communists want their revolution of dictatorship over the masses to be seen as justified .

{Justified?  They don't tell you that it is vicious sociopathism, of wanton lusts to play gods without criminal
prosecution or such consequences, regardless of how many millions are murdered, destroyed by violence,
 tortured, starved, forced into degrading conditions, stripped of freedoms so they
can play themselves off as little gods and the same kind of rich exploiters of wealth they claim leading capitalists are, while
enjoying the same kinds of luxuries as others make the supreme sacrifices for the wealth}.

It is almost a 100% certainty that there was an acute familiarity by the Cruz' couple as to this speech
by the Communists.  Anyone in the know in DC with Democratic Socialism and their springing up from the Communists
and how that these ARE the new Democrats in power for at least the last 10 years, will have seen this speech
in their fellow Congressman's or Congresswoman's home while socializing (as we know McCain frequently
did with Ted Kennedy for many years, for example), or will have frequently praised it and brought it up at
formal as well as informal events.  It is a mandatory speech that any Congressman who seeks his party's favor to
any position of influence MUST know and be familiar with.   

Ted Cruz's wife Heidi is on the anti-American, pro-Communist in origins founded
Council on Foreign Relations and served on a Board of the Council on Foreign Relations
that was specifically geared to come up with ideas of how to transition America from a sovereign Republic, to a North
America Region 1 of what will be a "used to be Canada, United States, Mexico" section of the world.   


http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

 Building a North American Community

Chairs: John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe, and William F. Weld
Vice Chairs: Thomas P. D'Aquino, Andres Rozental, President, Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and Robert A. Pastor, Professor and Founding Director of the Center for North American Studies, American University

Overview

Press Releases: English | French | Spanish

Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.


More About This Publication

    Task Force Members

Task Force Members

PEDRO ASPE is CEO of Protego, a leading investment banking advisory firm in Mexico. Mr. Aspe was most recently the Secretary of the Treasury of Mexico (1988-1994). He has been a Professor of Economics at Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (ITAM) and has held a number of positions in the Mexican government.

THOMAS S. AXWORTHY is the Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University. From 1981 to 1984, Dr. Axworthy was Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau. Since 2001, he has served as Chairman of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.


[Other task force members omitted for sake of brevity]

It is my contention, that not only was the Imagine Speech a mass hypnosis speech, but its origins was from some of the
same hard core Communists and Communism principles that make up the political arch con-artist Barack Hussein Obama II. 

That is another aspect as to why the Imagine Speech of Ted Cruz should be examined more closely as suspect.  It is becoming
too Caroll Quigley.    That is, where both major parties are as if now one and the same.
 http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Cruz votes to give unconstitutional powers away
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2015, 02:17:27 AM »
Cruz is a traitor to the Constitution of the United States.  FACT.
Along with 61 other Senators, he seeks to give a "we must pass it and then still not see what is in it"
National Communist-Socialist  "Enabling Act" of powers to Obama and to Corporations who wrote the legislation that is so above top secret that only 3 senators, Cruz NOT being one of them, even dared to read the bill, even though these were prohibited from taking pictures, notes, copies of, or discussing it in specifics outside the reading room they were allowed to read a copy of it before voting on it. 

A foreign born and illegal candidate to the Presidency that JTF has pushed along with the other illegal to run for President (Rubio) have really done no better in defending the Constitution than the others, except for Rand Paul, which even if he messes up in not siding with Israel and being sympathetic, at least got this one right.   

The federal office of the President is the only one (supported by the Vice-President, mind you) where a person gives a solemn obligation to PRESERVE the Constitution, not just defend it against enemies foreign and domestic, as the Constitutional oath for a POTUS so states:

 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, PRESERVE  protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."   

Yet, you guys want someone (like Cruz, who will be unConstititutional and a usurper as is Obama) who is a destroyer of the Constitution from the very moment of taking such an oath to actually live up to "PRESERVING" that which by nature he has already destroyed  by the mere fact of usurpation?  This is beyond something to merely be called irrational on the part of those promoting Cruz.  I'll leave it at that.


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00193

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1314 As Amended )
Vote Number:   193   Vote Date:   May 22, 2015, 08:51 PM
Required For Majority:   1/2   Vote Result:   Bill Passed
Measure Number:   H.R. 1314 (Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act )
Measure Title:   A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations.
Vote Counts:   YEAs   62
NAYs   37
Not Voting   1
Vote Summary   By Senator Name   By Vote Position   By Home State

 Grouped by Home State
Alabama:     Sessions (R-AL), Nay     Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:     Murkowski (R-AK), Yea      Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
Arizona:     Flake (R-AZ), Yea     McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas:     Boozman (R-AR), Yea     Cotton (R-AR), Yea
California:     Boxer (D-CA), Nay      Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:     Bennet (D-CO), Yea     Gardner (R-CO), Yea
Connecticut:     Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay      Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Delaware:     Carper (D-DE), Yea     Coons (D-DE), Yea
Florida:     Nelson (D-FL), Yea           Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Georgia:     Isakson (R-GA), Yea     Perdue (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii:     Hirono (D-HI), Nay      Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Idaho:   Crapo (R-ID), Yea     Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois:   Durbin (D-IL), Nay     Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana:   Coats (R-IN), Yea     Donnelly (D-IN), Nay
Iowa:   Ernst (R-IA), Yea     Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Kansas:   Moran (R-KS), Yea     Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky:   McConnell (R-KY),   Yea       Paul (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:   Cassidy (R-LA),   Yea   Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine:   Collins (R-ME), Nay   King (I-ME), Nay
Maryland:   Cardin (D-MD), Yea   Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts:   Markey (D-MA), Nay   Warren (D-MA), Nay
Michigan:   Peters (D-MI), Nay   Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota:   Franken (D-MN), Nay   Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi:   Cochran (R-MS), Yea   Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri:   Blunt (R-MO), Yea     McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:   Daines (R-MT), Yea     Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska:   Fischer (R-NE), Yea      Sasse (R-NE), Yea
Nevada:   Heller (R-NV), Yea     Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire:   Ayotte (R-NH),   Yea    Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey:   Booker (D-NJ), Nay      Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico:   Heinrich (D-NM), Nay   Udall (D-NM), Nay
New York:   Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay     Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina:   Burr (R-NC), Yea     Tillis (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota:   Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea     Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Ohio:   Brown (D-OH), Nay     Portman (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma:   Inhofe (R-OK), Yea        Lankford (R-OK), Yea
Oregon:   Merkley (D-OR), Nay   Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:   Casey (D-PA), Nay   Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:   Reed (D-RI), Nay   Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina:   Graham (R-SC), Yea   Scott (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota:   Rounds (R-SD), Yea   Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee:   Alexander (R-TN), Yea   Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas:   Cornyn (R-TX), Yea         Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Utah:   Hatch (R-UT), Yea     Lee (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:   Leahy (D-VT), Nay     Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia:   Kaine (D-VA), Yea     Warner (D-VA), Yea
Washington:   Cantwell (D-WA), Yea     Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:   Capito (R-WV), Yea      Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin:   Baldwin (D-WI), Nay    Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Wyoming:   Barrasso (R-WY), Yea   Enzi (R-WY), Not Voting

Ask yourselves.  Why should you support ANYONE who insists on saying the Citizens of the United States have NO RIGHTS and CONGRESS is authorized to sign away the Constitution and all powers of Governance to unknown Corporations and foreign entities that can tax and pass regulations on them from more than a dozen alien lands, or to give absolute dictatorship into the power of the Executive by Treaty and subversion of the Constitution?  Doesn't ANYONE ever demand the Constitution be adhered to anymore? 


Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) @ 25
“Congress and the President, like the courts, possess
no power not derived from the Constitution.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html
"... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned,
and not the laws of the United States generally,
but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution,
have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,
 supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,
that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts,
as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."



Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
 there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."


Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) @376 -377
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/100/371/case.html
“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.
An offence created by it is not a crime.
A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void,
and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”


Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/120/97/case.html
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.”


Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 (1827) @ 322,
http://supreme.justia.com/us/25/213/case.html
"The single question for consideration is whether the act ...is consistent with or repugnant to the Constitution of the United States?"


Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) 159 - 160
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
 
The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so...it is simply an illegal act upon the part of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state [official] ...seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507.
 
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810)  @ 87
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/10/87/case.html
“The question whether a law is void for its repugnancy to the Constitution is at all times a question of much delicacy...   The Court, when impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes.  … The opposition between the Constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other.”


A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) @ 495, 528-29
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/495/case.html
 
@ 495  “Extraordinary conditions, such as an economic crisis, may call for extraordinary remedies, but they cannot create or enlarge constitutional power.”
 
@528    “Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.      [Case Footnote: See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 120, 71 U. S. 121; Home Building &; Loan Assn v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 290 U. S. 426.  ]
 The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the
Page 295 U. S. 529
imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment --
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." “
 
…Second. The question of the delegation of legislative power. We recently had occasion to review the pertinent decisions and the general principles which govern the determination of this question. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388. The Constitution provides that
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Art I, § 1. And the Congress is authorized "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its general powers. Art. I, 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. “
 
 
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442
 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/case.html
 “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
 
 
 
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @29
 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/23/case.html
 
 “But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”
 
 
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)  @ 290
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/114/270/case.html
"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government, yet it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. "   
 


Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121
http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/2/case.html
“…the President…is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws;
and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."
 
 
 
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177 (dissent)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/case.html

“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
"… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws
or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”


Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/266/
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."


United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @ 877
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/
"But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "


[[[ This also extends to any "end-run" attempt made by Congress in ratifying any Treaty, including this Trans pacific Partnership scheme  in the making since 2002.   Regarding Treaties signed and two-thirds of the Senate ratified, and signed by a United States Natural Born Citizen President (which Obama is NOT) so again, Treaties  too MUST NOT VIOLATE the Constitution of the United States and especially the Bill of Rights Amendments.  To that effect, I enclose these cases to cite in resistance.  -- Brian ]]]


Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/57/635/case.html
"By the Constitution of the United States, the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. ... And the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States."



The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/78/616/
"The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."



Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/133/258/case.html
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the states.
It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." [Case citations omitted]



United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
". as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution."




State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @432-433
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/416/case.html
@ 432 "It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.
@ 433 . Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution...."




Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/332/
"A treaty made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.
The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution, and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids..." [Case citations omitted]




United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/270/181/
"The decisions of this Court generally have regarded treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress, and as usually subject to the general limitations in the Constitution.."



Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)@ 17
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/1/case.html
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."







Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2015, 11:59:24 PM »
The Washington Post bears out that Cruz in engaged in psychological manipulation in his campaigning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-campaign-credits-psychological-data-and-analytics-for-its-rising-success/2015/12/13/4cb0baf8-9dc5-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html

"Cruz has largely built his program out of his Houston headquarters, where a team of statisticians and behavioral psychologists who subscribe to the -burgeoning practice of “psycho¬graphic targeting” built their own version of a Myers-Briggs personality test. The test data is supplemented by recent issue surveys, and together they are used to categorize supporters, who then receive specially tailored messages, phone calls and visits. Micro-targeting of voters has been around for well over a decade, but the Cruz operation has deepened the intensity of the effort and the use of psychological data.

...The personality and political scores applied by the campaign are used to tightly tailor outreach to individuals. For example, personalities that have received high scores for “neuroticism” are believed to be generally fearful, so a pro-gun pitch to them would emphasize the use of firearms for personal safety and might include a picture of a burglar breaking in to a home.
But those who score high for “openness” or traditional values are more likely to receive a message that promotes hunting as a family activity, perhaps accompanied by an image of a father taking his son duck hunting.

...The Cruz campaign modified the Cambridge template, renaming some psychological categories and adding subcategories to the list, such as “stoic traditionalist” and “true believer.” The campaign then did its own field surveys in battleground states to develop a more precise predictive model based on issues preferences.
The Cruz algorithm was then applied to what the campaign calls an “enhanced voter file,” which can contain as many as 50,000 data points gathered from voting records, popular websites and consumer information such as magazine subscriptions, car ownership and preferences for food and clothing.

Cambridge, which has staffers embedded in the Cruz for President headquarters in Houston, makes behavioral psychologists available for consultation as ads and scripts are drafted."



Obama used hypnosis techniques in order to help win the 2008 election. At the first, I had believed that this was to commit a mass hypnosis targeted primarily upon voters. Instead, it became a means of a targeted mass hypnosis on news junkies and especially upon the Media. By psychologically re-engineering the Mainstream Media, they would softball questions to Obama, refuse to bring up his lack of “natural Born” US credentials (because his father was a Kenyan citizen, disqualifying Barack from nbc status); and the Mainstream Media would be engineered to attack anyone who questioned Obama at almost any level of skepticism as if they were crazy or dangerous.

The first word one should time Obama on, is aaaannnndd or "and". It is a precise and timed extension that is meant to set off a suggestive "trigger" in those who have been pre-conditioned elsewhere or are more naturally compliant. The Janus right and left facial profiles from a mannequin stance, also can be construed as suggestive...as if the teleprompter encourages suggestive body language and associative speech rhythym patterns to reach the collective sub-conscious. The points are then driven home to the lightly tranced masses by suggestive reinforcement via the leftist Television Media, whether they realize it or not themselves.

Reading material:

AN EXAMINATION OF OBAMA’S USE OF HIDDEN HYPNOSIS TECHNIQUES IN HIS SPEECHES
http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

Is Obama Using Hypnosis in His Speech?
http://www.hypnosisblacksecrets.com/covert-hypnosis/obama-hypnosis-techniques
     "Conversational hypnosis gives you the power to make hidden commands to others and make them obey your wishes, like Obama did. You can learn the exact covert conversational hypnosis secrets by studying the home study course, The Power Of Conversational Hypnosis by Igor Ledochowski."
Cruz is doing the exact same techniques, and making fools out of the gullible because only the gullible, regardless of their Intelligence Quotient demand he is the next Messiah, kinda like a peaceful Canadian Birth Citizen emigrated from that political system and immigrated into the United States updated Gentile version of a Bar Kosiba perhaps? 



Hypnotic Inductions and How To Use Them Properly
http://www.hypnosisblacksecrets.com/how-to-hypnotize/hypnotic-induction-methods-and-the-ways-to-use-them
   "There are several kinds of hypnotic inductions varying in approach length of time and tone. This article will explore the main induction styles and how they are used.
Rapid Induction induces a trance state very quickly in about 3 to 7 minutes. It is mainly used in stage hypnosis shows and clinical hypnosis and has been popular in last 10 years.
Rapid induction consists of rapid, short, instructional commands and helps to put the subject into a trance state with fewer words rather than traditional induction techniques.

Instant Induction is new induction method which produces a trance state in seconds. It is especially useful for hypnosis shows. Unlike other induction methods it doesn’t make your audience feel boring during the show. Instant induction techniques are simple to master with a practice.

Fixation Induction. This is a traditional induction method. It draws subject’s attention to the fixation object such as pendulum, a dot on the wall etc. As concentration focuses on fixation object, subject’s attention is drawn away from external sights and sounds.

Indirect Induction. As supposed, you don’t use any directives in this type of induction, instead you use analogies or metaphors. Indirect induction is used for subjects who resist any direct suggestions. When you use indirect induction, the subject doesn’t resist the suggestion, because he doesn’t know he is receiving it.

Muscle Relaxation Induction is another traditional method which relaxes every muscle in your body. Relaxation induction may begin from the top of the head and work down or begin with toes and work upwards. It is easy to learn and use relaxation induction while doing self-hypnosis or hypnotizing others.

Progressive Muscle Relaxation Induction is designed for those who find it difficult to relax. It takes more time than relaxation induction. It is widely used for people who need to relax specific areas of the body to relieve chronic tension on shoulders, chest etc.
There are also some other hypnotic induction techniques used in hypnosis like Dave Elman method, Arm-Drop method, Confusion method, Drop Object method etc."




Olavo de Carvalho on 20 August 2008, warned that the psychological engineering conducted by the Obama Campaign in 2007-2008 was first experimented and carried out in Brazil.
http://www.brazzil.com/articles/195-august-2008/10100-obamas-psychological-blackmail-has-been-done-before-in-brazil-with-success.html [Link no longer active]

"… not to win over voters through rational persuasion, but to weaken, shock, and stupefy them to the point of making them accept every loss, every humiliation, every defeat, just in order not to contradict the assumed moral obligation to elect him, it being of little importance whether he actually is an enemy in disguise.”


Expressions of a successful hypnosis of Mainstream Media Members will include such as that of May 3, 2009, where CNN's John King, blubbered that morning, on how "Obama blocks out the sun". We could go through a whole litany of names, but the point is: when they blubber this nonsense, they are become the enemy of the Republic, enslaved to an idea subliminally implanted into them.   Those who watch the psychologically engineered Ted Cruz campaign videos using the hypnosis techniques in the wording - pictures - music, will also likely blubber on this forum words to that same effect: "Ted Cruz block out the sun!  Ted! Ted! Ted!" 

Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:

[ Government Control ]... IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

But the face of Big Brother
[e.g., Obama for Dems, Cruz for you guys] seemed to persist for several seconds on the screen, as though the impact that it had made on everyone's eyeballs was too vivid to wear off immediately. The little sandy-haired woman had flung herself forward over the back of the chair in front of her. With a tremulous murmur that sounded like ‘My Saviour!’ she extended her arms towards the screen. Then she buried her face in her hands. It was apparent that she was uttering a prayer.
At this moment the entire group of people broke into a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘B-B!... B-B!...’ — over and over again, very slowly, with a long pause between the first ‘B’ and the second-a heavy, murmurous sound, somehow curiously savage, in the background of which one seemed to hear the stamp of naked feet and the throbbing of tom-toms. For perhaps as much as thirty seconds they kept it up. It was a refrain that was often heard in moments of overwhelming emotion. Partly it was a sort of hymn to the wisdom and majesty of Big Brother, but still more it was an act of self-hypnosis, a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise. Winston's entrails seemed to grow cold. In the Two Minutes Hate he could not help sharing in the general delirium, but this sub-human chanting of ‘B-B!... B-B!’ always filled him with horror. Of course he chanted with the rest: it was impossible to do otherwise. To dissemble your feelings, to control your face, to do what everyone else was doing, was an instinctive reaction.

George Orwell: ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’


Suggested complimentary reads:
The Making of a Fuehrer http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html


Psychological Study of Hussein Obama
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7499200/Psychological-Study-of-Hussein-Obama

Compare the material and the techniques of Obama and then that of Cruz. You "Jews for Cruz for 2016" are being suckered by a Council On Foreign Relations anti-United States right to exist as an independent sovereignty New World Order globalist 
http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh256.htm

who subscribes to Carbon Taxation in which we pay mega-taxes in the thousands of dollars a year to pay third world nations as like a form of Islamic penalty tax or as graft for Global Government participation while destroying our jobs and economy until other nations are forced to dispossess whole states and resources of the United States for "reparations", and place under a Region 1 governance where there is no longer a United States or Canada or Mexico, and the only government heads are in Europe dictating how bad we all are, etc.   Do the research.  Wake up or hop that train to the next Hillary Fun Camp where a picture of a smiling Ted Cruz is captioned  "Work shall make you free, and our showers will give you the breath of Peace."    Uh huh...R.I.P. (Rest In Peace), if you and all the other groupies who go mindless for Cruz don't snap out of it.. 

 

Offline Cuddles

  • New JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2016, 09:17:54 AM »
I don't know about you guys but I'm looking forward to the Sanders and Trump faceoff. I actually want them in a bareknuckle cage match, to tell you the truth. That's as good as a decider as any in my most humble opinion.