Constitutional Emergency

Ted Cruz is NOT a Legal U.S. Citizen at all By JB Williams

Ted Cruz is NOT a Legal U.S. Citizen at all

© JB Williams


The debate over whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is eligible for the U.S. Presidency is about to end. It has now been confirmed that Senator Ted Cruz is neither a “U.S. natural born Citizen” or a “legal U.S. citizen.”

According to all relative legal citizenship documentation available at present, Senator Ted Cruz was born Rafael Edward Cruz, a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970 and maintained his legal Canadian citizenship from birth until May 14, 2014, 43 years later.

The Cruz Campaign for the U.S. Presidency has claimed that Senator Ted Cruz was a “citizen at birth” via his U.S. mother and a “dual citizen” of both Canada and the United States in 1970 and that by renouncing his Canadian citizenship in 2014, he would become eligible for the Oval Office.

There are several problems with this claim… which make the claim false

  1. “citizen at birth” is a 14th Amendment naturalization term based upon “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.”

Senator Cruz was born in Canada, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. Further, any U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment only, is a “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen,” as you will see below. (Source is Cornell Law on the 14th)

  1. “dual citizenship” was prohibited in Canada in December 1970. (Source is Canadian Law)


From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.


From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.


  1. United States laws make it possible to be a legal U.S. citizen by only the following means…


a)      NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution)


b)      NATIVE BORN CITIZEN - 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. (The 14th Amendment definition for “citizen”)


c)       NATURALIZED CITIZEN - the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual (aka anchor baby), or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities, (such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) form filed with the US State Department at the time of birth). (This includes “anchor baby” or “citizen at birth” born here or abroad, under the 14th) Source is U.S. State Department


  1. “dual citizens” are prohibited from being “natural born Citizens” as it pertains to Article II requirements for the Oval Office.


As the stated purpose of the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office is to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance at birth from ever occupying the Oval Office, and all “dual citizens” at birth are born with “dual national allegiance” at birth. The mere condition of “dual citizen at birth” would be a direct violation of the known purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen requirement in Article II. Source is a letter from Founder John Jay in proposing the NBC requirement for t....

Now, Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly stated that he has never “naturalized” to the United States, which eliminated the possibility that Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” U.S. Citizen.

Senator Ted Cruz has also documented the fact that he was not a “native born citizen” of the United States, but rather a “native born citizen” of Canada on December 22, 1970, who maintained his legal Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014.

The Harvard opinion letter written by two of Senator Cruz’s Harvard friends, Neal Katyal & Paul Clement, a mere “commentary” on the subject, relies upon the 14th Amendment naturalized citizen at birth concept, despite the fact that Ted Cruz was not “born in or under the jurisdiction of the United States,” was never “naturalized” to the United States, and completely ignoring the fact that Canada prohibited “dual citizenship” in 1970, as well as the fact that “dual citizenship” alone would prevent him from “natural born U.S.” status.

All of this explains why Senator Ted Cruz has no legal U.S. citizenship documentation of any kind. He is not a “natural born” – “native born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States. Because someone must be one of the three in order to be a legal citizen of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz cannot possibly be a “legal U.S. citizen” of any form.

Only days ago, a 17-year-old first time voter at a New Hampshire town hall meeting for Senator Ted Cruz asked a very reasonable question… “How and why, until recently, were you unaware that you were a Cana...

As the young man explained, this is not an eligibility question, but a credibility question… which Senator Cruz refused to answer, preferring instead to regurgitate the talking points carefully crafted by his Harvard friends and eventually, shouting the young man down, after a Cruz fan in the audience shouted “better a Canadian than a Kenyan!” (VIDEO) Meanwhile, a growing number of Constitutional Law Professors agree, “Cruz is NOT eligible.”

Of course, Senator Marco Rubio is also “ineligible,” as a “native born citizen at birth” by virtue of 14th Amendment “anchor baby” policies only.

In the end, the only possible way to consider Senator Ted Cruz eligible for the Oval Office is if every “undocumented resident alien” is eligible for the Oval Office, which I personally believe is the real agenda of both political parties, as they work to meld the USA into the global commune where there is no legal difference between “natural born Americans” and “undocumented aliens.”

The fact that so many Americans do not know or care to know the truth about the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, demonstrates just how far down the road of “hope and change” for the destruction of the Constitutional Republic, the enemy within has already achieved.

Soon, “natural born Americans” will be in the American minority… and they will be ruled by foreigners who have no legal U.S. citizenship at all.

Views: 2118

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, that's certainly a red flag!

Thank you, J.B.  Nicely documented.  

To nitpick: The de Vsttel treatise on Natural Law, which the constitutional Framers were very familiar with and were very evidently going by (it was the common knowledge of the time) also refers to being born on the soil (jus soli), as well as being born of its citizen parents (jus sanguinis).  But your essential point is well taken.  

Oath keepers must now bring the Usurper himself to justice.  That issue still hangs over our heads.  Or we haven't done our job, to get the nation back under the rule of law. Before it succumbs to the unlawful machinations of the Usurper; who already fancies himself as a dictator.  And why not, if The People allow him to purloin the office.  He can figure that he is a law unto himself.  So it's our fault as much as his.  That's why the onus is on us, to act.  And quickly.  Before the Usurper orchestrates a Crisis that allows him to declare martial law.  And then it's all over, for the American federal constitutional Republic, anyway.  

It seems a matter of interpretation, and in this day and time, people seem to determine things the way they want them.   Just an observation.   It seems that, if he was not a Legal Resident, then his Uber-Rich Opponent David Dewhurst, who ran against him for the Senate in Texas, would have brought it forth.

I have found this discussion and comments quite interesting, except for the name-calling and sarcasm employed by some.  I believe there is valid reason to question the natural-born citizenship as stated in our Constitution regarding qualification for the POTUS position.  But I also see in these comments how divided and opinionated many of us are, which of course is what the opposition is counting on at the time of the final election.  Those who are not happy with the final selectee will stay home to pout and not go to the polls when it counts.  Ergo the opposition will win by default, as they did in 2012.  There is a matter that I am very concerned about, and that is the corruption and fraud that is so prevalent throughout our government, which has contributed to the size and demeanor of the beast.  Who would have ever imagined just ten years ago that the criminal activities of a politician could and would be covered up and espoused like those of Mrs. Clinton have been?  This has all been made possible by an administration and people who no longer use the rule of common sense and justice made possible by denial and the rule of political correctness.  This is our real enemy! 

While this discussion is focused on the negatives regarding Cruz and also Rubio, no one seems to be providing a solution other than to denigrate them and those who support them.  Why can we not come together and focus on a solution with emphasis on the positive?  Have they succeeded in dividing us that much? 

We do have a solution, if people would only recognize it.  We have one candidate who is not part of the establishment, who totally qualifies under the US Constitution as a natural-born US Citizen for POTUS, who is morally and ethically honest and sincere, and who intends if elected, to rid us of political correctness and the control of the government over we the people. This man does not rant and rave, throw temper tantrums, or even speak evil of those who do him dirty on the campaign trail.  He is a quiet intellectual who knows how to unite teams to achieve "impossible" tasks, and has succeeded in everything he has set his mind to starting in his youth.  I do not understand why we are not extoling the virtues of Dr. Ben Carson instead of going in the direction this discussion seems to be heading.  Dr. Carson succeeds by winning the hearts and minds of the people he works with, not by force, deceit, or dirty tricks.  He is a gentleman, a leader, and an outstanding citizen of our country who had experienced the American dream from the bottom up through the trenches,, overcoming major handicaps and lives as a Christian example should live.  His goal is to unite and do everything he can to instill all the virtues we used to hold dear in this country, not how much money he can sack away  This candidate is a man who can bring our party and country together and who is not and will not be controlled by any entity other than his conscience and true love of what is best for our country.  His is not a politician and abhors everything to do with political correctness because he sees the damage it is doing to our country and unity by bringing out the worst in people instead of the best in people..  He is a solution, not a problem.  He is respected by all.  Read the books he has written and published and see if you do not agree with all that I have stated.

I supported Dr. Carson in the beginning until I discovered his 2nd Amendment position wasn't strong and that he supports forced vaccinations on the federal level. Dr. Carson needs to explain and clarify his position on these two very important issues.

Dr. Carson also supports TPP, which stopping is CRITICAL to salvaging at least some of our sovereignty from the UN. Not to mention, he supports amnesty. His close friend, Armstrong Williams, is also on record spouting venomous rants against whites.

Well said Lowell...............

Amen!  Amen!  Amen!  This is the first thread I have ever responded to in this forum, and I am totally disgusted at the immature name calling of those who hold a different opinion than some posters.  The opinion of people like RONALD C VROOMAN is just as valuable (but not a bit more valuable) than those on this forum who disagree with him.  Those who are working to destroy our country sit back and laugh at the infighting of those of us who say we love our country and want the principles on which it was originally founded to stand.  Calling every other person on the thread a "PINO" show the utmost immaturity and actually diminishes the credibility of the argument put forth by a person who stoops to such low name calling.  Why do we have to stoop to the level of the progressives with name calling and demeaning of those who we disagree with?  Be mature, agree to disagree, and put forth a more convincing argument than the person you disagree with.  It is really that simple.  I really wish that those who moderate the thread would tell people to be civil in your disagreement or knock it off.

Thank you for that, Mr. Stipe, Sr. I get so chilled to the bone when I go on other forums and people are flinging insults, showing off their immaturity and proving the progressives correct at calling Republicans/Conservatives bigots or worse, by the word choices, made by some. We should at least attempt to be civil. Scream into a pillow, sit still in our desk chair and keep our fingers off the keyboard until we can make a cohesive, coherent argument. Have an argument (as in backing up your opinion with facts if there are any) as to why you disagree. Posit a solution to whatever the problem is. Name-calling helps no one.

And, if there are Moderators on this site, may we hear from them, please?


My questions for the Cruz supporters are:

Wouldn't you rather determine Cruz's eligibility now than later?  Wouldn't it be wise for us to determine his lawful right to be POTUS at this junction rather than at some point in the future?  And do you find it strangely similar to what Obama supporters have done defending someone's eligibility without having fully vetted and determined the full truth and disclosure of that matter?  And lastly; Does it not bother you that Cruz obviously lied about Carson in Iowa, and that his wife is employed by Goldman Sachs?  Knowing this, doesn't it make you feel like you're meeting the new boss, but he's the same as the old boss? 

I see little difference between Cruz Supporters and Obama Supporters. Neither respect the Constitution nor the rule of law.



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live" shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service