Save Western Civilization > Save America
Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques
Brianroy:
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."
Brianroy:
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!
Zelhar:
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.
Brianroy:
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.
Brianroy:
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version