Save Western Civilization > Save America

Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques

(1/4) > >>

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.

 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:'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 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.

Effectually, Cruz employs a combination of indirect induction along with instant induction mass hypnosis,
 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

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).

Ephraim Ben Noach:
WTF? ARE YOU ON DRUGS? I'm definitely not under hypnosis! And your bullshiite was to long to read.

Ephraim Ben Noach:
You are a leftist hypocrite! His mother was Us citizen, living in Canada. If he was not electable....either was Obama, or McCann.....

 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". 


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    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 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
"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:

See also:

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.

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:
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.”

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
"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 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
“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
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]: " 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." 
and whose birth in Kenya was repeated as affirmed especially when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate   ...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 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 

Is Obama Using Hypnosis in His Speech?

Hypnotic Inductions and How To Use Them Properly
"… 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.   

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?


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version