by Sharon Rondeau

Is Sen. Ted Cruz a “natural born Citizen?”

(May 20, 2015) — On Monday, April 13, 2015, The Post & Email sent a letter by certified mail to the campaign headquarters of Sen. Ted Cruz in Houston, TX.  On Wednesday, May 20, 2015, The Post & Email received confirmation that our letter was, in fact, accepted and signed for.

One of Cruz’s campaign slogans is “Our Standard:  The Constitution.”

Our communication to Cruz detailed current events, the questions regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s presidential eligibility and allegiance, and those surrounding Cruz himself. Born in December 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Cruz’s father was a Cuban citizen who later became a Canadian citizen, and Cruz’s mother was born a U.S. citizen.  In keeping with Canadian law, Cruz was awarded Canadian citizenship at the moment of his birth.

His father became a U.S. citizen in 2005 when his son was 35 years of age, the age the Constitution requires as a minimum for the president and commander-in-chief.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution also requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen.”  In a letter written in July 1787 from John Jay to George Washington during the constitutional convention, Jay opined:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army, shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Originally, the Founders and Framers of the Constitution had envisioned the citizenship qualification for president as simply “a Citizen,” as is required for U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives.  In a May 12 exclusive article for The Post & Email, constitutional scholar Joseph DeMaio wrote that “…it should be noted that after George Washington submitted Jay’s ‘hint’ to the participants at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the actual language we now see in Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 appeared and was approved by the convention delegates for final inclusion.”

On August 19, 2013, The Dallas Morning News reported that Cruz was born a dual citizen of Canada and the United States in an article titled, “Dual citizenship may pose problem if Ted Cruz seeks presidency.”  However, when Obama himself reported that he was born a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S., anyone raising “eligibility” questions was ridiculed and silenced in Saul Alinsky fashion.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) declined to release any documentation to The Post & Email that it may hold on Cruz’s naturalization.  Likewise, the U.S. State Department will not release any certification of Cruz’s birth as a U.S. citizen born abroad if it exists.

Documentation released last fall to The Post & Email by the state of Texas did not contain the question of Cruz’s citizenship when he applied for the position of that state’s solicitor general.

Documents made public by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to a FOIA request which preceded that of The Post & Email also did not indicate Cruz’s citizenship status.

The U.S. Justice Department has not yet responded to a weeks-old FOIA request for any documents containing Cruz’s name from when he was an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice.  The Post & Email is also awaiting a response from the U.S. Department of Education on how Cruz’s Selective Service registration was reportedly generated from a Pell Grant application, according to Associate Director of Public & Intergovernmental Affairs Richard S. Flavahan.

Flavahan has also vouched for the Selective Service registration form of Obama, which was found by a criminal investigation to be a “computer-generated forgery” more than three years ago.  In 2009, at least two different versions of Obama’s purported registration form were disseminated to members of the public through FOIA requests.

The American Bar Association failed to respond to our request for copies of Cruz’s applications for admission to the organization.

A week before Cruz announced he would seek the presidency, two former U.S. Solicitors General published an editorial in the Harvard Law Review asserting that Cruz is eligible under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his mother’s U.S. citizenship.  In their piece, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement argued that a person who is a “U.S. citizen from birth” is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the place of birth.

“There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better,” wrote Katyal and Clement.

In Obama’s case, the author of several memos published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Jack Maskell, asserted that Obama’s birth within the U.S. to a U.S.-citizen mother was enough to qualify him as a “natural born Citizen.”

History, however, tells a different story.

Obama’s official biography, however, stated that he was born in Kenya when it was first published in 1991 and remained the same until April 2007, when it was mysteriously changed two months after Obama declared that he would seek the presidency.

Breitbart News, which discovered the biographical change, reasons that “The most likely meaning of the national-born clause is that you must have been an American citizen at birth, so that you would not have greater loyalty to some foreign nation. Cruz was born an American citizen, and has spent most of his life serving this nation with unabashed patriotism.”

Similarly, Fox News’s Carl Cameron reported in March 2013 that Cruz was ineligible to seek the presidency because of his birth in a foreign country, but an unidentified author at Fox News asserts assert that Cruz is eligible.

In 2004, John W. Dean decried the fact that then-Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was “born in British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and thus is also ineligible” for the presidency.

Cruz has taken no action to expose the forgery of Obama’s Selective Service registration form and long-form birth certificate as declared by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse on March 1, 2012.

Our letter to Cruz reads as follows:


April 13, 2015

Sen. Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz
Cruz for President
P.O. Box 25376
Houston, TX 77265

Dear Sen. Cruz:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I recently received in response to a FOIA request for your naturalization record, if such a document exists.

As you will note, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) considers such documentation to be confidential even though you are a public figure and have declared yourself a 2016 presidential candidate.

At least in part because of the dearth of documents associated with Barack Hussein Obama’s past, it could be argued that the United States is at its most grave crossroads since the American Civil War. I think you will agree that the Middle East is teetering on a conflagration which could end in a nuclear war and the destruction of Israel, while thousands of illegal aliens stream across our unprotected borders, our relations with once-friendly countries are in shambles, and corruption has permeated virtually every government department.

Average Americans with views oppositional to the Obama regime have been harassed, and researchers seeking the truth about Obama have had their lives threatened; I know because I am one of them.

What was once the greatest military in the world has been reduced to a politically-led, dysfunctional, rudderless organization victimized by Obama’s radical social experimentation and Rules of Engagement which have needlessly and senselessly killed thousands as its alleged commander-in-chief golfs and lives the high life off of any hardworking Americans who are fortunate enough to have a job.

After observing Obama’s repeated violations of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, the bedrock of our republic, many are now asking, “Where do his allegiances lie?” Why has he shown clear deference to Muslims, many of whom have connections to The Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations, and mocked Christians and Christianity whenever possible?

Why has he distorted federal immigration law in order to flood the country with illegal aliens requiring food, shelter, medical care, education, and relocation assistance, charged to the U.S. taxpayer who can barely feed his family?  Why have tens of thousands of illegal-alien criminals been released into unsuspecting American communities by those sworn to protect the country against those very threats?

People of faith are now unthinkably being forced by government to betray their deeply-held religious beliefs in favor of new social mores which seek to undermine the foundation of the traditional American family and our cherished First Amendment rights.  The erosion of religious freedom in America today brings to mind the old Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, where God has been stamped out in favor of the state.

Obama is also curiously friendly with communist and socialist dictators as he apparently seeks to replace the American system of government with theirs.

Where do his allegiances lie?  We do not know, because he refused to release any documentation about himself, aided by a sycophantic and treasonous mainstream media as well as cowardly politicians who preferred to allow a decorated U.S. Army flight surgeon to spend time at Ft. Leavenworth and sacrifice his career rather than to demand an investigation into the unknown man occupying the White House and pretending to be the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.


Obama’s only proffered documentation has been deemed 100% fraudulent by a criminal investigation conducted by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse under the auspices of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.


Not one member of Congress, including you, has taken steps to investigate the Cold Case Posse’s three-year-old findings to determine why the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website in April 2011 and Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries.”  Because of Congress’s absconding of its responsibility, the United States is on the precipice of losing its heritage of freedom of speech, free-market capitalism, and the American dream to the mediocrity of socialism and statism.

Many suspect that the reason Obama did not release his college applications is that he either misrepresented himself as a foreign-citizen student in order to obtain specific aid packages or that he truthfully stated that he was a foreign national, which would make him ineligible for the presidency and possibly the other positions of public trust he has held.

Millions of Americans who recognize the current constitutional crisis Obama has caused would like to ascertain that anyone declaring himself a candidate for the highest office in the land meets the constitutional qualifications.


Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.


Sen. Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz
April 13, 2015
Page 2

The so-called grandfather clause of Article II, “…or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” was included so that the new nation formed by the 13 colonies did not have to wait 35 years for a natural born Citizen to serve as president; that is, one born to parents who were U.S. citizens or to a U.S.-citizen father.

Many contemporary publications have mistakenly or purposely conflated the terms “native-born citizen” and “natural born Citizen.”



In fact, the New York State Board of Elections continues to wrongly state, even after it has been brought to its attention, that the president must be “born a citizen” rather than a “natural born Citizen” as is stated in the Constitution.
The absence of foreign allegiance was of the utmost importance to John Jay, who was a delegate to the Second Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention, largely wrote the New York State Constitution, served two terms as New York governor, and became the first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, appointed by George Washington.
In a letter written to Washington on July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

In response, Washington wrote to Jay, “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”

NBC Defined

While I am aware that two former Solicitors General of the United States, Neil Katyal and Paul Clement, wrote an opinion piece published in the Harvard Law Review the week before you declared your candidacy, there is ample historical evidence which indicates that the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” was that the person was born in the United States to citizen parents, as stated tangentially by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875).



Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, also stated, as reflected in the Congressional Globe of the 37th Congress, “…All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”


Other historical treatises describe a “natural born Citizen” as one born in the United States to a U.S.-citizen father. Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel, upon whose work the Founders relied heavily, maintained that a child inherited the citizenship of his father.


In Section 212 of “The Law of Nations,” Vattel wrote:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


Sen. Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz
April 13, 2015
Page 3

Simply because two former Solicitors General, one presumably a Democrat and one a Republican, say that a person born anywhere in the world to one U.S.-citizen parent is a “natural born Citizen” does not make it so. The very essence of the term “natural born Citizen” indicates that no law or statute is required for the person to qualify. The two attorneys rely on congressional statutes to make their case, omitting Vattel, Bingham, and other historical references to what a “natural born Citizen” was understood to be.

Moreover, Katyal and Clement’s attempt to discourage citizens from investigating your or any other candidate’s constitutional eligibility as well as the timing of the release of their editorial appear disingenuous at best.  Since the political parties and candidates themselves refuse to qualify themselves, “We the People” must do so in order to preserve the Republic.

Our first president, George Washington, was born in Virginia, but his parents and he were born British citizens because Virginia was a British colony at the time.  If a simple birth on U.S. soil or to one U.S.-citizen parent were enough to qualify someone for the presidency, the “natural born Citizen” clause would not have been necessary.

From what we know, your father was a Cuban citizen, then a Canadian citizen, and finally, he assumed U.S. citizenship in 2005, some 35 years after your birth in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. We do not know if your American-born mother, who presumably was a United States citizen prior to your birth, also became a Canadian citizen before or after your birth.

There are at least two reports, although not independently confirmed, which quote you as having stated in the past that you are not eligible for the U.S. presidency.



If accurate, your presidential candidacy is the moral equivalent of Obama having stated he did not have the authority to change immigration law without Congress and then issuing “executive actions” last November which he pronounced days later as intended to “change the law.”


One of the other presidential requirements is that the candidate must be at least 35 years old.  At several points in our history, several would-be candidates were disqualified for failing to meet that criterion.


California sued over candidate eligibility

Potential candidates have also been disqualified for having been born in a foreign country.



In the case of Chester Arthur, who assumed the presidency after President James Garfield died, historical accounts of the time indicate that his eligibility was in question not only because of a rumor that he was born in Canada, but also, and more importantly, because Arthur knew his father was not a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Assuming these accounts to be true, it is evident that the meaning of natural born Citizen involved the citizenship of the father at the time of the child’s birth.


In 1916, Missouri attorney and future Assistant Secretary of State under FDR, Breckenridge Long, asked the question in an essay published in the Chicago Legal News, “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Within the Meaning of the Constitution?”

Lifelong Democrat Breckinridge Long: “Natural Born Citizen” means born on the soil to a father who is a citizen

In that essay, Long wrote, in part:

It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.  If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

In the interest of the American people, I am hereby requesting your written, notarized permission to obtain your naturalization record, if one exists, from USCIS; a certified copy of your Selective Service registration form; your application submitted to the American Bar Association, which ignored my request of nearly three weeks ago; copies of any passports under which you have traveled, including the application forms; applications submitted to Princeton University and Harvard Law School, and any documentation that you were born with U.S. citizenship.


Sen. Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz
April 13, 2015
Page 4

In the absence of your written permission, I ask that you obtain the aforementioned documents and make them available to the press in the form of certified paper copies with raised seals. Images posted on the Internet are not sufficient, as we have learned in the case of Obama.  You reportedly provided a paper copy of your Canadian birth certificate to The Dallas Morning News in August 2013; I ask that you do no less with my publication and the American people now.

I have already obtained the application forms you completed in seeking the post of Texas Solicitor General, which did not ask whether or not you possess U.S. citizenship.

Sen. Marco Rubio, who is announcing his candidacy today, and Gov. Bobby Jindal face similar challenges to their “natural born” status given that they were born in the U.S. to foreign-citizen parents who owed allegiance to their countries of origin at the time. If we intend to “keep the Republic,” as Benjamin Franklin admonished us to do, we must reject these candidates also, regardless of how sincere they might appear.

In closing, naturalization statutes, the 14th Amendment, and any other statutes passed by Congress following the ratification of the Constitution have no bearing on the meaning of “natural born Citizen.”  To dilute the requirement would be a betrayal of the men and women who risked and/or gave their lives so that we could be free of foreign rule and influence.  We have seen the dire consequences from the election of a candidate whose background was completely obscured and whose promises of “hope and change” were nothing but a smokescreen to achieve a bloodless coup over what was the freest, most prosperous nation on earth.

The media has shown an astounding display of irresponsibility in its reportage of the “natural born Citizen” requirement, including the once-vaunted U.S. News & World Report, in which Susan Milligan wrote in an editorial just after The Dallas Morning News’s article that you were born to “American parents.”  Ironically, Milligan correctly states that a child born overseas to two U.S.-citizen parents is himself a U.S. citizen.


Milligan is described as a “political and foreign affairs writer,” which in my view does not say much for the mainstream media.

Sir, if you love this country as you claim, you should have nothing to hide from its people as you seek to attain its highest office.

I await your response.

Very truly yours,

Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
PO Box 195
Stafford Springs, CT 06076


Editor’s Note:  Since our letter was sent to Cruz, further evidence of bias in the mainstream media has become public through ABC’s George Stephanopoulos’s $75,000 donation to The Clinton Foundation.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. The requirement that, to be an NBC, BOTH Parents of a child who is born IN the USA, MUST be Americans at the time of Birth of said person born in the USA is not in opposition with the fact that one’s citizenship comes from the Father. One’s Mother, along with said Father MUST be American as well. The Child MUST be born IN the USA. Children born abroad, even to Citizen Parents, are NOT NBCs but are just “Citizens”. NY State continues to be in opposition to the US Constitution in it’s use of “Born a Citizen” vs. “Natural-Born Citizen”.

  2. Wow! I can’t imagine getting a letter like that and not with drawing my canadacy and feining a remarkable fever if I were him.
    Cody Robert Judy
    P.S. wrote a Breaking News Report on the Blog this AM. Noticed several complaints about the link not working or access being denied.