TAKE OFF, EH. IS TED CRUZ IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN? PUNDIT LAWYERS GET THIS SO WRONG, THE HOSERS.

During the campaigns for Republican primary voters, in a masterful political stroke, candidate Donald Trump sowed doubt into the minds of would-be voters by hinting that candidate Ted Cruz might not be a natural-born citizen of the United States and thus ineligible to the hold office of the presidency should Cruz win the nomination and then win the general election.

It is true. Cruz is a U.S. citizen by law. Congress granted Cruz citizenship through naturalization.

You can see how in WAS TED CRUZ A U.S. CITIZEN AT BIRTH? THE MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT (THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952) WHICH THE RULED OVER HIM SAYS YES. At his birth on December 22, 1970, Ted Cruz only qualified for citizenship under Section 301(a)(7) of PL 414. Cruz failed the citizenship test under all other clauses of Section 301(a) of PL 414.

The true damning proof against Ted Cruz being a natural-born citizen is this:

Ted Cruz could have lost his citizenship under Section 301(b) of Public Law 414, which encodes the McCarran-Walter Act. Under Section 301(b), Congress required Ted to show up in the USA before turning 23. Further, as soon as Ted came to the USA, Ted needed to live within the USA for five years continuously as a condition of getting his citizenship. As well, to count those five years, the count could not have started until Ted was 14. Had Ted failed to do any of these, Ted would have been stripped of his conditional citizenship given to him by naturalization.

In PL 414, Section 301(b) pertained to Section 301(a)(7). Cruz only qualified for citizenship under Section 301(a)(7). Congress required Cruz to meet all of Section 301(b) before becoming a naturalized citizen.

Congress can't take away citizenship from natural-born citizens. Congress only can take away citizenship from those in the process of naturalizing who have been born outside the USA.

In 1967, in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, the United States Supreme Court robes ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. And in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the robed ones narrowed the ruling of the Afroyim decision, stating that only a Fourteenth Amendment citizen had safeguarded citizenship, but Congress retained authority to regulate the citizenship status of a person who was born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent.

In 1978, Congress repealed the law at issue in Rogers v. Bellei —a requirement for a minimum period of U.S. residence. Even though, Congress removed Section 301(b), the USSC upheld that Congress could revoke citizenship of those like Cruz. Ted Cruz could not be natural-born because his conditional citizenship remained in jeopardy and doubt until the 1978 repeal.

To this day, Congress could re-instate such condition upon those born outside the jurisdiction and territory of the US Congress and such law would be constitutional according to the USSC.

Cruz could not argue citizenship under the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Ted Cruz was 1) not born in the states or territories of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; 2) and was not naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

It is true. Ted Cruz' mom was a U.S. citizen and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress precisely because the Congress claimed her according to the 16th Amendment, as well as the Revenue Acts of 1913, 1916 and 1918 along with the 1924 USSC ruling of Cook v. Tait.

So, if Ted Cruz' mom was subject to U.S. Congress taxation while in Canada, that could have made Ted a U.S. citizen upon his birth, irrespective of the citizenship of his dad and irrespective of any naturalization laws of Congress. Yet, I know of no one who has tested that legal theory.

However, would that make Ted would a natural-born? To be born is to be brought forth. Born is an Old English word, the alternative past participle of beran. To bear is an Old English word meaning to bear, bring; bring forth, produce; to endure, sustain; to wear. Natural enters English about the 1300 meaning, hereditary, by birth. The word derives from the Latin naturalis meaning by birth, according to nature.

The recognized ways anyone gains citizenship by sovereigns in general are these — 1) birth 2) naturalisation 3) reintegration 4) subjugation and 5) cession

Citizenship by birth can happen in one of two ways — 1) natural-born means inherited from birth by jurisdiction over territory, aka jus soli; 2) through a parent aka jus sanguinis.

The case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),  practically settled what defines natural-born citizenship of the United States. The USSC justices ruled that natural-born citizens are those persons who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, without regard to the nationality of their parents.

In short, if a U.S. citizen acquired his citizenship through an act of Congress, he is not a natural-born citizen. Only those citizens who would have natural allegiance to Congress because of being born under their jurisdiction are natural-born citizens.

When a man is born under the jurisdiction of a law body, there is natural presumption that he must have allegiance to that body.

• If he goes against their laws, he is a criminal.
• If he goes against their laws specifically to subvert the lawmakers themselves, he is a special kind of criminal. He is a traitor.

To be a proper citizen, he would need to follow their laws. Thus he has natural allegiance that derives from the accident of his birth. Hence, he would be natural-born.

If someone is born elsewhere and is invited to live among a people and their law givers and those law givers grant citizenship by decree of law, that one becomes an artificially-born citizen. There is no presumption of his allegiance. He must declare an oath of allegiance. No natural born-citizen ever needs to decree an oath of allegiance.

Cruz isn't a natural-born citizen because even if he is a U.S. citizen, Cruz could be one only by a statute of Congress and not one naturally, by the accident of birth. In short, there was no natural presumption of allegiance by Cruz to Congress because Cruz wasn't born under the rule of Congress. Hence Ted Cruz is not natural-born. 

This is so easy to get, I don't understand why many struggle with it.

Being born under the jurisdiction of Congress, I am a natural-born citizen. Through my birth, I have natural allegiance to Congress, which if I don't uphold by breaking their laws, I become a criminal.

At his birth, Ted Cruz lacked this natural allegiance status to the U.S. Congress. Cruz was born having natural allegiance to the lawgivers of Canada. That is why Ted Cruz was born as a natural-born citizen in Canada. Cruz needed to do nothing to be a citizen of Canada automatically.

It's simple really:

• No one can be natural-born citizen who needs the law of Congress to decree his citizenship. 
• Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to decree anyone natural-born. For that to happen, the constitution would need to be amended. 
• All citizenship bills passed by Congress and signed into law are naturalization laws. 
• Naturalization laws make artificially-born citizens by decree.
• All those made into citizens by laws of Congress cannot hold the office of the presidency of the United States by the Constitution.

Ted Cruz is smart. Ted Cruz seems like the kind of American who should be president. Many thought the same of Alexander Hamilton, a patriot who was born in Nevis, British West Indies, and who, because of the constitutional requirement of natural born, could not be president. "Ted" Cruz is a contemporary-times Alexander Hamilton.

If Ted Cruz fails to drop out and no one can force a legal action, Ted will be one more straw that affirms the claim of the constitution being merely a piece of paper and nothing paid by blood and loss of livelihood of those who fought for independence from King George, 3rd.

Ted will be adding to the disdain and disrespect those of the political establishment have for the U.S Constitution. If we're going to have a Constitution, we need to live by it regardless of how it affects any individual. If enough don't like those effects, again, if we're going to live by a Constitution, then they need to change it through amendment. 

The Constitution matters. Ted doesn't. Ted Cruz should withdraw his candidacy. 

For many works on this, check out NATURAL-BORN U.S. CITIZENS. READ SNIPPETS FROM RECOGNIZED AMERICAN WORKS ON THE TOPIC INCLUDING CITED CASES.

Read more ...

CANADIANS VOTE FOR PRETTY-BOY JUSTIN TO DICTATE TO THEM FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. CANADIANS ALSO LIVE BY THE BIG LIE.

So Canadians voted for their members of parliament, and in effect, voted for their next prime minister, the product of nepotism, Justin Trudeau. Justin, the former son of one-time Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau and short-time school teacher, Justin made a habit of staying in college well into his adult years even though he only completed two of four degrees he started.  In 2008, Justin was given his first election win as an MP.

BC resident and seemingly indoctrinated voter Cassandra Fletcher earned her 15 minutes of fame the other day by sharing on Facebook, an attention-seeking bogus open letter written to Canada's next prime minister in which Fletcher asks for Justin to revert Canada to a mythical country.  The Canadian establishment propaganda media conjured a story from Fletcher's attention-seeking Facebook behavior.

Foolishly, Cassandra believes the problem with Canada is the electoral system. Cassandra even wrote, "[Justin] be the one to recreate what democracy is in Canada."

In light of the elections, the silly beliefs held by Canadians like Cassandra, all adult Canadians ought to ask themselves if they live under a representative democracy? There is no Canadian alive today and there has not been a Canadian alive for a long time who ever lived under representative democracy.

Officially the country of Canada has a constitutional monarchy entangled still with the Queen of England, 148 years after the supposed independence of Canada. However, Canadians have a parliament that includes a House of Commons whose members, known as members of parliament (MPs), get elected by Canadian voters directly. Currently, there are 338 MPs who supposedly represent Canadians.

Much like us Americans, Canadians have been indoctrinated into believing a huge lie about their country (see: THE BIGGEST LIE ALMOST ALL AMERICANS BELIEVE: AMERICANS HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. BERNIE, HILLARY AND ALL OF THE CANDIDATES LOVE THE BIGGEST LIE.) Like, Americans, Canadians have the right to vote. That is it. And like Americans, Canadians fail to see that voting does not equal representation.

In the first ever Canadian election of 1867, there were 1,491 voters for every MP. In this election, there were 51,951 voters for every MPs.

As you can see, like their American neighbors, Canadians started out with something that resembled representative democracy. However, Canadian representative democracy began dying almost straightaway, in waves.

The first death wave came between 1873 to 1913. The second death wave ran from 1914 to 1946. A significant death wave hit between 1947 and 1975. The last death wave hit between 1976 and 2013.


Today, here is the picture of how many voters each MP has by province.




When you discover that on a full-time, 40-hour work week with no time in Ottawa, a MP could give a mere three minutes on average to each of his adult constituents — seriously three minutes.



Now, if Canadians were to have a truly representative democracy, one where each Canadian could at least sit with his or her MP for 15 minutes, once a year and still have their MP go to the House of Commons in Ottawa for three months to hash out the only most important matters of Canadians, here are the number of representatives Canadians would need by province.


Adult residents of BC are 300 MPs short of having true, minimal representative democracy.

And here is what it would look like if MPs only gave 10 minutes to each Canadian, 18 and older while still hanging out in Ottawa for three months.


The true problem for Canadians is the same problem from which adult Americans suffer  — the lack of popular representation. And like Americans, Canadians live under a dictatorship of a well-organized minority.

Any Canadian who believes she or he lives under a representative democracy has been bamboozled. If Canadians lived under a  representative democracy, there would be many political parties with no party dominant. Canadians would have more than the conjured branding messages from their NDP, Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. Likely, parties would not exist in Canada.

Instead, Canadians would get superior government from their federal system. Only the most important bills would rise to the top and become law. Canadians would be left alone and respected.

If you are an Canadian adult or soon to be adult, likely this is the most important work you have yet read in your life. You can be sure that not one candidate from any of your establishment parties would ever want you to have representation. Spread the word!

I suspect the same problem exists for Australians, New Zealanders and Brits. It's quite a shame that in only a few hundred years, all of the hard work from the geniuses of the Age of Enlightenment has been scrubbed away from political cockroaches.

This is the illusion representative democracy:

Read more ...