North American Law Center to Cruz: ‘Two Weeks to Admit You’re a Fraud – or We Will’

ETFNEWS.COM ^ | 07 APRIL 2016 | ETFNEWS.COM

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

“In 2 weeks the North American Law Center will release proof that Ted Cruz is a fraud. They have issued his campaign a warning that if Cruz doesn’t tell the truth and step down they will release their proof – the truth that so many refused to believe or listen to.” – Karen Bracken

The North American Law Center issued this stark notice to the Cruz campaign on their latest podcast on April 3 (19:00 mark) –

“We’re talking about American citizens (who) think a guy who’s Canadian-born is eligible to be a U.S. president – without any documentation whatsoever. If Ted continues on – we are going to release the files we have, two weeks from tonight, and we will bury Ted Cruz forever in American politics… If we have to stop this guy from defrauding this nation, then we are going to do that.” – J.B. Williams, N.A.L.C.

[Nero Germanicus]

I still don’t think that a three year old picked up much foreign influence in Canada compared to 42 years worth of U.S. influence.

[Nero Germanicus]

You are most welcome. I’m glad that you found it informative.

[JayGalt]

Neither do I. One of the difficult things about the Immigration laws is that they transfer the emphasis from the individual and instead create a class or classes of individuals and treat them as a group.

My problem with Ted Cruz re citizenship is not so much Ted Cruz, it is the increased risk to the US from allowing the class of people born abroad to a citizen parent into the Presidency.

If we remove the need for two citizen parents and birth on US soil then a whole host of situations arise with the possibility of Manchurian candidates. There is no mechanism to vet them for foreign influence. Even with the NBC there is no guarantee that the President will be loyal to the country's interests and by adding a parent who is not an American citizen and/or significant time abroad the risk of disloyalty grows.

The Founders had a very clear example before them of the dangers of allowing men who could be claimed by a foreign Government to serve our country. The British were stopping American vessels and impressing sailors who had been born in the UK but had become Americans. Britain did not recognize naturalised American citizenship, and treated anyone born a British subject as still "British" — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 9,000 sailors who claimed to be American citizens.

In addition to going to war, the US took other measures to deal with the problem of having its sailors impressed into the British Navy: On February 9, 1813, the US House of Representatives passed a law that required that all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens.

Whatever “natural born citizen” meant to the founding generation (many of whom were still alive and serving in Congress at the time,) the US Congress of 1813 thought that requiring a person to be such would prevent the British definition of “natural born subject” from applying to such a person—which means that a “natural born citizen” of the US could not have been born on British soil, nor could a “natural born citizen” of the US have even one British parent.

As a side note I finally found the quote I was looking for last night!

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual—7 FAM 1130 (page 9) says:

…the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

[JayGalt]

I just found documentation to confirm that Fam 7 has been scrubbed in the recent past and perhaps continues to be scrubbed.

PixelPatriot Blog The U.S. Department of State scrubbed the Presidential Eligibility Section 7 FAM 1131.6-2 from the Foreign Affairs Manual as the highly contested Presidential primaries are heating up in which several candidates have been challenged based on ineligibility due to not being Natural Born Citizens; one of the 3 eligibility requirements in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

I discovered this by comparing previous versions of the State Department website between January 19th, 2016 and February 29th, 2016 using the Wayback Machine, a service of the Internet Archive.

State Department Foreign Affairs Manual 2016 Scrubs Presidential Eligibility According to the State Department, the deletion of the Presidential Eligibility Section 7 FAM 1131.6-2 was made on February 24th and the following section moved up. However, from the archived web page on February 29th it can be seen that the Presidential Eligibility section had in fact been deleted but section 7 FAM 1131.6-3 Non-Citizens by "Naturalization" remained in its original place contrary to CON-636.

[little jeremiah]

Asking a few of you, who may know (and there are of course others too) if 0bama was involved in trying to pass bills when he was a Senator changing the definition of Natural Born Citizen, or have that clause changed in some way. Someone I know wants that info.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you for the ping. This topic interests me greatly and I read hours and HOURS of research on the topic on FR a few years ago.

[JayGalt]

Congress knows full well the definition of NBC. They have tried unsuccessfully to change it for the last 19 years which proves their knowledge and intent to subvert the constitution, led by Lawrence Tribe. This link has a lot of information on the various attempts which should make it easier to research on whose behalf they were made. There is also a link to a more extensive discussion at that site.

Congressional Natural Born Citizen Parts I, II & III: Who Knew What & For How Long?

[little jeremiah]

Many thanks!

[little jeremiah]

Oh no - link says this;

Oops! That page can’t be found.

It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search?

[little jeremiah]

Did a quick search, this looks like it:

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

A Congressional Natural Born Citizen Parts I, II & III: Who Knew What & For How Long?

Comments: 23
The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Here are 13 times they have floated tried to amend the requirements: 09-11

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/13eligibilitybillstable312.1.11.pdf

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Attempts%20to%20Redefine%20or%20Amend%20Article%20II

Here are some NBC bills whereby BHO was trying to help himself to qualify.

[David]

Asking a few of you, who may know (and there are of course others too) if 0bama was involved in trying to pass bills when he was a Senator changing the definition of Natural Born Citizen, or have that clause changed in some way. Someone I know wants that info.

The closest you can get to that issue is this.

When Barry was in the Senate, his closest confident in the Senate was Claire Macaskil of Missouri and she was the primary mover on the Senate resolution. You draw your own inference on the subject.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you to David and Beautiful_Gracious_Skies.

I will get all this info to the person who requested it.

[LucyT]

Check out # 472 , # 473 , go back to # 467...

Thanks, David.

[hoosiermama]

Here.
Keep in your arsenal!

[patlin]

2009 Senate Bill [S. 2678]

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part III: McCain & S. Res. 511 Were Meant To Sanitize Obama’s Ineligibility to Be President

[excerpt]Gasoline & Fire Do Not Mix

This is not a new concept in DC, yet it would seem these days that it has become the norm. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t as in the case of S. 2678, a bill [To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become president].

The bill was sponsored by Sen. McCaskill (MO) and introduced in the Senate on February 28, 2008. After having been read twice, the bill was then referred the Judiciary committee. On February 29thSen. Obama (IL) signed on as a co-sponsor and then on March 3rdSen. Menendez (NJ) & Sen. Clinton (NY) were added as co-sponsors to the bill. By March 4thSen. McCaskill & team had recruited a Republican, Sen. Coburn (OK) to join the ticket to usurp the constitution.

Now, this particular bill was also 2 fold, its 1st point was to declare all children born to military ‘natural born’ citizens. The 2nd mission of the bill was to expand on the defininition of ‘natural born’ by including the following which is what jumped right out at me:

“Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: ‘Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.”(emphasis added)

So if we take McCaskill’s words ‘shall include’ and the singular use of ‘citizen’ we can conclude that Congress was aware of the Congressional history of the term ‘natural born’ and was looking for an out for McCain. But Obama, seizing his opportunity to ride the wave, rushed right over to McCaskill’s office and requested to be assigned as a co-sponsor of the legislation the very next day. Or was McCaskill the ‘fall gal’ all along? Did Obama & the Democratic elite know ahead of time of Obama’s ineligibility problem and used McCaskill or did she sign on to the corruption of her own volition? This we may never know.

Beginning sometime in 2007, the blogosphere was a buzz with a former Washington Post article from 1998 titled “McCain’s Panama Problem’ that had resurfaced and the search into the Panama Canal history took off at rocket speed. Questions regarding McCain’s eligibility continued to plague McCain & the RNC. The public announcement of S. 2678 on February 28, 2008 was like pouring gasoline onto an already burning fire.

A quick search of Internet archives shows that the issue was quite a ‘hot’ topic however I was not paying too much attention to it at the time which I will forever regret. But someone else was paying very close attention. A certain someone, who has remained very close to Obama since his years at Harvard, was quietly working the backrooms of college campuses for the Obama campaign.

Obama’s “Tribe”

On January 16, 2007, Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times breaks with the scoop that [L]aurence Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, calls Obama “one the two most talented students I’ve had in 37 years in teaching…When I look at my kids and grandkids and ask what makes me hopeful about the future-one thing is Barack Obama.]

Now, while this is not a full out in the open endorsement, it does give the initial opening for a future endorsement which seems to come in June of 2007 when Tribe appears in a campaign TV ad for Obama, that kicked off in Iowa. Also in June, Tribe gives an interview to The Harvard Crimson in which he states that although [h]e would back Hillary if she won the Democratic Party’s nomination, he has always championed Obama’s cause.]

On September 17, 2007 the Chicago Tribune publishes an extensive list of Obama’s Policy team and listed under domestic policy is ‘Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law Professor). Then on November 19, 2007 MSNBC reports that the first Obama campaign mailing had been sent out to NH voters and inside the mailer is a quote from Tribe. In addition to the endorsement in the campaign mailers, Tribe spent quite a bit of time that November touring New Hampshire campaigning for Obama.

Moving on into December of 2007, Tribe’s former endorsement is officially listed at Obama’s my.barackobama.com by Eddie Lee, Obama Staff.

For some readers, this is where you may want to switch from coffee to a stiffer drink.

The “Fix” Is In

On January 31, 2008 Professor Tribe gives a persuasive talk with the main argument on electability. In his talk, Tribe openly states that

he [c]onsidered it highly probable the John McCain will be the Republican candidate] and also that [h]e is convinced that Hillary is unelectable]. Tribe finishes his persuasive by talking about the importance of voting in the primaries, the importance that a candidate not win by a small margin and how there was no room for complacency.]

This pretty much wraps it up for me as to why Obama signed onto S. 2678 so quickly and why the wheels shifted so swiftly from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511. With Tribe already on Obama’s policy team, you can bank on the fact that discussions were already had that S. 2678 would have to be resubmitted as an amendment to the constitution, however there was a much swifter and less ovbious way to proceed that would sanitize Obama’s eligibility problem through McCain. With the help of the 2 most prominent/influential constitutional lawyers known to the DC circuit, they would use a non-binding, but publically accepted backdoor method called a Resolution.

Already laying out the background on Laurence Tribe, we must now look at Theodore Olson. Olson was born in Chicago; however he grew up in the same liberal stomping grounds of the San Francisco valley as Tribe. He received his law degree at Berkley in 1958 & is a member of The Federalist Society. While serving under Reagan & Bush Jr., Olson championed conservative & constitutional causes, though his actions out of public office lean more to the liberal progressive causes. After retiring from Solicitor General in 2004, Olson returned to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher at their DC office. Olson had previously worked for Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles (beginning in 1965) as an associate where he eventually made partner. Soon after the 2008 elections, Olson jumps the conservative ship & joins David Boies, (lead council for Gore in Bush v. Gore & an invited guest to Olson’s nuptials to Booth in Napa Valley, Ca in 2006) in Boies’s lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 in California.

Thus the question begs to be answered, why would a member of the Federalist Society, co-write an analysis that is in complete conflict to what the Federalist Society’s review of natural born citizen is? Is his membership for decoration purposes only? Maybe, however I believe Olson finally released his inner ‘liberal civil rights activist’ that has been pent up for decades.

Note must also be taken that Olson’s wife, Lady Booth is very active in the liberal activist realm & was a staunch supporter of Obama during the 2008 campaign. Thanks to commenter ‘royll’ for bringing this to my attention.

The Two Views Become One

As I stated earlier, the change from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511, a resolution [R]ecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen] moved curiously swiftly.

I will also not go into all the ‘whereas’, as I have already covered this. You can read them here, along with my commentary. What I will do is pick a couple of them apart that pertain to Olson & Tribe’s analysis, as well as the testimony/analysis of Olson & Tribe. I will also place special emphasis on Tribe who is on record as officially endorsing Obama as well as a current member of Obama’s domestic policy team well before S. Res. 511 was introduced. I do believe Olson’s part, for the most part, was pure decoration for the benefit of the GOP to get them to go along with the scheme. I’ll let you judge for yourself by reading this article from the ‘World Socialist Website’. There could be no better cover-up, than to put a so called conservative constitutional lawyer who is loathed by the liberal left, but also happens to be a closet liberal civil rights activist in bed with a progressive one.

First let’s begin with the written analysis/testimony that was permanently recorded in the congressional record on April 30, 2008 but was officially sent to the Senate on April 8ththrough the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The analysis which begins by citing that the Constitution does not define ‘natural born’ citizen & that Congress has never given a definituion either can be argued against. Some argue otherwise, however the best place to find the definition would be in the 39th Congress records of 1866 when the 14th Amendment was being drafted. They then go on to cite Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 which is a 1983 Supreme Court case on freedom of religious speech. While this had me baffled for a day or so, it suddenly hit me. Maybe they were not using the deciding opinion of the case. Maybe they went to the dissenting opinion. BINGO! Justice Brennan dissenting wrote:

“Finally, and most importantly, the argument tendered by the court is misguided because the Constitution is not a static document whose every meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the Framers. We have recognized in a variety of constitutional contexts that the practices that were in place at the time any particular guarantee was enacted in to the Constitution do not necessarily fix forever the meaning of that guarantee…”

So basically what they did was take Brennan’s dissenting opinion and use it as precedent to usurp our guarantee, our national security protection under the Rule of Law that the person attaining to the highest office of land, the Commander of our military forces would have no foreign influences or intrigues. But let us not stop there with this opinion, Brennan goes on to write:

“Our primary task must be to translate “the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century…”

And there we have it, that big ‘it’s my constitutional right to be president some day’ analogy thrown right in our faces. Framers be damned!

read the rest of the research here... https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/the-congressional-natural-born-citizen-part-iii-mccain-s-res-511-were-meant-to-sanitize-obamas-ineligibility-to-be-president/

[patlin]

OOPS! should have read 2008 Senate Bill [S. 2678]

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Wow, check out these proposed state laws on ballot eligibility. Had these been in place, Ted would have been kept off several ballots. This includes his adopted state of Texas: 9

HB295 Introduced -
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/pdf/HB00295I. pdf#navpanes=0
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
relating to certification for placement on the ballot of candidates
for president or vice-president of the United States.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AASection 192.033, Election Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (d) to read as follows: (a)AAExcept as provided by Subsection (c) or (d), the secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the general election ballot the names of the candidates for president and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on the ballot.
(d)AAThe secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate
for president or vice-president
unless the candidate has presented the candidate ’s original birth certificate
indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.

If Texas passes HB295, Cruz could not appear on the General Election Ballot in his ‘home state!’ (38 EV)

[patlin]

The problem is, this bill does not specify the those birth certificates have to be from one of the 50 states, it merely asks for an original.