WheresObamasBirthCertificate to Discuss Ted Cruz Citizenship Questions on Friday Night

“THE TED CRUZ DECEPTION”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 17, 2016) — On Friday, March 18, 2016, the WheresObamasBirthCertificate.com (WOBC) radio show will host a two-hour discussion on questions surrounding whether or not presidential candidate Ted Cruz holds U.S. citizenship.

Gary Wilmott, who blogs at GiveUsLiberty1776, will host guests Sharon Rondeau, Editor, The Post & Email, and JB Williams, columnist and co-founder of the US Patriots Union and North American Law Center (NALC), both of whom have researched Cruz’s background through a number of channels and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests over the last year.

On March 23, 2015, Cruz declared himself a presidential candidate for the 2016 election. Although born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a Cuban-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother, Cruz insists he meets the Article II “natural born Citizen”  requirement because of his birth to one U.S.-citizen parent.

Williams hosts a Sunday evening radio show on the PatriotVoice network and divulged on a recent episode that he possesses a sworn affidavit from a Cruz interviewer claiming that Cruz, in 2012, described a “natural born Citizen” as a person born in the United States to to citizen parents.

In 2013, amid speculation as to who might declare him- or herself a 2016 presidential candidate, Fox News Channel’s Carl Cameron reported that Cruz was not eligible to seek the presidency because of his birth outside of the country. Since Cruz entered the race, Fox commentators have occasionally raised the eligibility question but failed to report on numerous ballot challenges and lawsuits now filed contending that Cruz is ineligible to serve.

On Wednesday, an amicus brief was filed by Harvard Law School professor Einer R. Elhauge in a case challenging Cruz’s eligibility to the New York Supreme Court initiated as a ballot challenge to the New York State Board of Elections earlier this month.  The judge hearing the case stated that he could not rule on the merits since the objection by the petitioners had not been filed timely.

A hearing on the appeal is scheduled for March 23.

The mainstream media often conflates the term “citizen” with “natural born Citizen,” the latter of which was designated in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution only for the office of the President and commander-in-chief.

Several radio hosts, commentators and legal scholars claim that Cruz is eligible, while others argue that he is not, while Cruz claims that the “Constitution is clear and straightforward” on the matter.

Friday night’s discussion will focus not on the question of whether or not Cruz meets the presidential eligibility qualification of “natural born Citizen,” but rather, the dearth of evidence that Cruz is in possession of even basic U.S. citizenship, which could have been acquired by the process of naturalization.

Over the last year, The Post & Email has submitted FOIA requests to the U.S. State Department and other government agencies for documents which might be responsive to revealing whether or not Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen born abroad at birth or afterward.

The claim of ineligibility by a number of petitioners was made concerning Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who suspended his campaign after a disappointing showing in the March 15 Republican primaries.  Rubio was born in the United States, albeit to two parents from Cuba who had not yet naturalized as American citizens.

Friday night’s show will begin at 9:00 PM EDT and conclude at 11:00 PM.

Listeners wishing to speak with the host can call 347-989-8853 and press 1.  Others may listen by phone or online.

WheresObamasBirthCertificate.com was founded in 2008 by Michael Volin in an effort to discover the obscured documentation of Barack Hussein Obama and whose long-form birth certificate was found by criminal investigators to be a “computer-generated forgery.”

Williams has led a movement to introduce Articles of Impeachment written by NALC against Obama beginning in the House Judiciary Committee.  Thus far, Rep. Ted Yoho of Florida has publicly stated his support for impeachment.

14 Responses to "WheresObamasBirthCertificate to Discuss Ted Cruz Citizenship Questions on Friday Night"

  1. Du Mac   Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:00 AM

    In your comment numer 3, you state that Ted Cruz has ni citizenship (none)
    Under the rules of Cuba, born to a Cuban father, would’nt he hold a Cuban citizenship?
    NO argument, just a question?

  2. Christopher Farrell   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:56 PM

    Referring to your comment #3, Sharon: The question that everybody should be asking in light of Pastor Carl Gallups’ riveting YouTube mini-documentary on the obvious conspiracy in multiple attempts in Congress to contravene the Article II natural born citizen clause in the Constitution is why is it that nobody in Congress or in military service is standing-up in defense of the Constitution when every one of the members of Congress and every American armed serviceman takes an oath to defend that document.

  3. Sharon   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM

    U.S. Citizenship for “Children Born Abroad to U.S. parents/parent” was and is regulated and granted UNDER THE U.S. NATURALIZATION ACT PROVIDED that the parents/parent met/meet specific requirements to convey their citizenship on to their child. Citizenship through Naturalization is based on the laws in effect at the time the child was born (per U.S. Supreme Court). For Cruz those laws are 1952 – November 1986. The U.S. Naturalization ACT does NOT confer ‘natural born citizenship’ as that is a citizenship birth right based on place of birth and birth to citizen parents THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU!

  4. Sharon   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:40 PM

    WHAT IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF MEAN?

    “Senator Jacob Howard, an author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment told us exactly what that meant and defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?“

    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum (issue) in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’

    Additionally, Both Sen. Lyman Trumbull and Sen. Jacob Howard provided the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

    “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 ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

    and added:

    “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…”

    Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:

    “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

  5. Sharon   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:33 PM

    The QUESTION that everyone should be ASKING is this…

    Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2014 AND if he did NOT go through the U.S. Naturalization process to obtain his mother’s U.S. Citizenship (if she really did retain it) as Maine Governor Paul LaPage’s two daughters had to do (and they are not ‘natural born’), then what citizenship does Ted Cruz hold? The answer is NONE!

  6. Sharon   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:31 PM

    Ted Cruz and his ‘naturalized’ citizenship – A History Lesson
    Cruz’s background as we know it today:

    ‘Natural-born Citizen’ as defined by the very person responsible for the writing of the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham requires 3 things: that you are born within the jurisdiction of the United States, that BOTH parents are citizens of the U.S. either by naturalization OR by being natural born themselves AND that both parents must NOT owe ANY allegiance to ANY FOREIGN country.

    CRUZ was born in Canada and NOT WITHIN THE REPUBLIC/JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Even if his mother was still a U.S. Citizen, his father WASN’T, thus per Bingham Cruz does NOT meet the requirement that BOTH parents MUST be U.S. Citizens and therefore he is NOT a natural born citizen. His father was also a Canadian citizen and thus owed allegiance to Canada NOT the U.S. That disqualifies him. And if Cruz’s mother was a Canadian Citizen as the Canadian records indicate then its obvious that Cruz was not a natural born U.S. citizen at birth, but instead a Canadian citizen.

    Cruz’s mother married Alan Wilson in 1959 and they moved to London, England in 1960. She divorced her first husband in 1963 (per Alan Wilson). and continued to live in England until sometime after the death of a child she had (out of wedlock), Michael Wilson (not Alan Wilson’s son – he says they were definitely divorced but agreed to allow her to use his last name for the child).

    London records identify a Michael Wilson was born and died in 1966 and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery in Kensington, a London neighborhood. Eleanor then returns to Houston sometime in 1966 after the crib death of her son, where she meets Rafael Cruz. Rafael Cruz states that they moved to and were living in Canada sometime around 1966-1967 (he states they lived there for 8-years returning in 1975 so that makes it 1967. Canadian records show an address for them in 1975 in Calgary). He states he became a Canadian Citizen in 1968 and that he and Eleanor were married sometime around 1967-1968 (Ted says 1969) but where…Canada? Most likely. Non one can find a Marriage license for them here in the States.

    Because Cruz’s mother lived in London from 1960 to sometime in 1966 after the death of her first son, and then almost immediately ends up in Canada with Cruz sometime around 1967, she CLEARLY did not meet the required 10-year physical U.S. residency requirement which requires that at least 5 of those years must be spent physically within the U.S. BEFORE the birth of the child. (Alan Wilson continues to live in London and is still a U.S. citizen.

    As previously mentioned, at the time Cruz was born in 1970 Canada did not recognize dual citizenship and per their laws if you are born on Canadian soil (and even today in an airplane over Canadian airspace) you are a Canadian born citizen only (in 1970). Their dual citizenship clause was changed in 1977.

    Additionally, there is a documented report that Cruz’s parents voted in the 1974 Canadian Federal elections as Canadian citizens. This document can be found in Canadian government online searches.

    As for her possible Canadian citizenship, Canadian law at that time states that a foreign spouse (in this case Cruz’s mother) who was married to a Canadian Citizen (his father became one in 1968) and lived in Canada with said Canadian spouse (her husband) for 1-year AUTOMATICALLY became a Canadian citizen, which would account for the information that they voted in 1974 as Canadians and that their names appear as Canadian Citizens on the 1974 Canadian Election Voter list.

    This could quite possibly be the reason why Cruz hasn’t produced a Consular Report of Birth Abroad to substantiate his U.S. citizenship because he doesn’t have one. It is up to the U.S. Consulate to determine Cruz’s birth citizenship and if his parents went to the Consulate to report it, the Consulate most likely refused to ‘grant’ U.S. citizenship based on the fact that Cruz’s parents were Canadian citizens by virtue of his father becoming one and his mother meeting the statute of being married to one and living in the country for the 1-year required time, as well as Ted being born on Canadian soil which makes him a ‘natural-born CANADIAN’ citizen just like Rand Paul stated. Per Canada, they stated Ted was/is a Canadian and nothing more.

  7. Sharon   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:30 PM

    Regarding my 2nd Comment, the following section was not posted in its entirety. The 2nd paragraph of the Supreme Court Ruling in Bellei is as follows:

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

  8. Sharon   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:28 PM

    THE ACT OF 1790 AND 1795:
    Cruz keeps citing in his responses the Act of 1790 (long-standing U.S. Law) which did state that children born abroad to U.S. citizens (plural not singular) were considered ‘natural-born citizens’.

    HOWEVER what Cruz is NOT telling American citizens is that the Act of 1790 was REPEALED as in voided, voted out, nullified, NO LONGER LAW and REPLACED with the Act of 1795 which changed AND only grants the ‘status of citizen’ NOT natural born to children born abroad to U.S.citizens (again plural). Why plural, because at the time these acts were written a woman with U.S. citizenship who had a child born abroad could not confer her U.S. citizenship onto her child – it could ONLY descend through the father. That right did not come into effect until the 1900s and only convey’s ‘citizen’ status ‘granted’ through naturalization process.

    Additionally, ‘children born abroad’ is regulated under the U.S. Immigration and “Naturalization” Act which does NOT confer natural-born status on those children. U.S. law when Cruz was born in 1970 is the same as it is now, upon the birth of a child born abroad the U.S. parents or parent MUST REPORT the birth to the U.S. Consulate who then will determine the child’s citizenship status. If it is determined that the child can hold U.S. Citizenship a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and/or a U.S. Passport would/will be issued to the parents who MUST ALSO RENOUNCE THE child’s Canadian (or other country’s) citizenship AT THE SAME TIME. Cruz has NOT produced his Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a very important document as it would clearly state that he held U.S. Citizenship, however he would only be a ‘naturalized’ citizen as it is again, governed under the Immigration & Naturalization Act, which ‘grant’s citizenship – you are NOT automatically ‘born’ with it, nor is it descended upon the child from the parent.

    Additionally, Canada did NOT recognize Dual Citizenship. Canadian officials say he is/was (since renounced) a ‘natural born Canadian citizen’ and nothing else. Since the U.S. did recognize dual citizenship, and per the granting of U.S. citizen status by the Consulate he would also have to, at age 18, go through the Naturalization process, renounce his Canadian Citizenship and take an oath of allegiance to U.S.

  9. Sharon   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:26 PM

    SUPREME COURT Ruling on Naturalized Citizenship status of ‘Children Born Abroad” – In Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), a case where the birth circumstances (child was born to American mother and Foreign Father in Italy) were nearly identical to those of Cruz, their ruling was as follows:

    “…Afroyim’s broad interpretation of the scope of the Citizenship Clause finds ample support in the language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bellei was not “born . . . in the United States,” but he was, constitutionally speaking, “naturalized in the United States.” Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. ANYONE ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP SOLELY UNDER THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.”

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to

  10. Sharon   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:25 PM

    “Natural Born Citizen” DEFINED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (U.S. Congress – from Congressional Records)

    In 1866 during 14th Amendment House debates, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment clarified ‘natural born citizen’ as follows: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

    Additionally in 1872, Bingham again defined ‘natural-born citizen’ during a House Floor hearing regarding the status of U.S. citizenship of Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain. Here he clearly states 2 requirements for being natural born…born to parents (mother and father) and within the jurisdiction of the United States:

    “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

    In this speech, Bingham cites 2 factors that declares Dr. Houard to be a “natural-born citizen”: born of citizen “parents” (plural not singular therefore requiring you to have 2 U.S. Citizen parents for this status) AND born within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.

  11. roberted   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 8:33 PM

    People mistakenly believe Cruz is anti-establishment. Here is a short summary of what I a president Cruz would mean to the establishment, and why.

    I think Cruz is, and would be as president, just be part of the establishment and both parties, who allowed and assisted the ineligible, identity fraud con-artist Obama to become the putative president, will breathe a sign of relief for the future as the natural born citizen requirement of the Constitution is put to rest forever.

    Cruz, Rubio and Jindal and maybe Santorum, all ineligible, serve the purpose of getting Congress and many others off the hook for their part in the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, which gave us Barack Hussein Obama.

    Congress protects Obama to protect themselves and they have been since the moment he was sworn in back in 2009. Congress knows what the penalties are for treason. This is why there is no impeachment or investigation of Obama by Congress. They know the truth about Barry could be revealed and acted on and they will do anything to prevent that from happening. TRUMP 2016!

  12. Jeffrey Harrison   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:13 PM

    CORRECTION, number (2)., the correct title for J.B. Willams
    article is:

    TED CRUZ IS IN THE US SENATE ILLEGALLLY? (Dec.4,2015)
    http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams317.htm

  13. Jeffrey Harrison   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 4:59 PM

    Here are two articles written by J.B. Williams that I found interesting
    and I perhaps will relate to the above noted radio show.

    (1). TED CRUZ IS NOT A LEGAL U.S. CITIZEN AT ALL (Feb. 8,2016
    http://www.newswithveiws.com/JBWillams/willams324.htm

    (2). TED CRUZ IS NOT A LEGAL U.S. CITIZEN AT ALL
    http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWillams/williams317.htm

  14. Virginia   Friday, March 18, 2016 at 1:41 AM

    How can a person who just recently renounced their Canadian Citizenship be a Natural Born citizen of the USA?

    When Cruz stated that Obama was not a natural born citizen because you need to be born on US soil to two citizen parents, I presume he had no presidential aspirations because of his own situation. But…. when Obama got away with it, he likely said to himself, “why not?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.