by Tom Arnold, ©2022
(Jan. 31, 2022) — On Saturday evening, January 29, 2022, in Conroe, Texas, the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, held a large political rally. The rally was televised live by NEWSMAX TV. During the telecast NEWSMAX, as is its custom, displayed a number of brief messages on the TV screen re: other news stories, questions for the viewing audience, etc.
One such question this time asked if Donald Trump were to run again for president in 2024, who do you think he should consider for a running mate. NEWSMAX specifically listed three choices of the many available: Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz, and Nikki Haley.
I ask you, readers of this editorial, WHAT IS WRONG WITH NEWSMAX? Do they think that the NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN requirement in our constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5) regarding one’s eligibility to be president and vice-president doesn’t mean anything anymore? Do they think that the NBC matter is taboo to talk about publicly? Or could it be that NEWSMAX is not as informed or knowledgeable about newsworthy matters as it ought to be?
My criticism of NEWSMAX has to do with the fact that Senator Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He “officially” renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014. Since it appears his mother was a U.S. citizen, was this somehow sufficient for Cruz to become a U.S. citizen eligible to run for the presidency or vice-presidency? Ted Cruz’s father was born and raised in Cuba, obtained political asylum in the United States after a student visa expired, and reportedly became a naturalized U.S. citizen. The fact is that none of these things comports with being a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Personally, I admire Ted Cruz and support many of the same ideas and principles. However, many Americans supported, and voted for, a constitutionally ineligible Barack Hussein Obama, and look how that has turned out for our country.
I also contend that NEWSMAX is incorrect to offer Nikki Haley as a possible vice-presidential candidate. Although she was born in South Carolina in 1972, both of her parents were born in the Punjab district of India and immigrated first to Canada and then reportedly came to the United States in 1969. I do not know what Ms. Haley’s parents’ citizenship ultimately turned out to be, but it is entirely possible that they were still citizens of India when Ms. Haley was born.
SO WHY, NEWSMAX, IS IT THAT YOU NEVER REFER TO OR DISCUSS THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR ONE TO RUN FOR OR BECOME ELECTED PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT OF OUR COUNTRY? Would it surprise you to learn that this subject is one which has great national security implications for our constitutional democratic republic? Once again, just so you won’t forget or continue to cover up the matter, it is called NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
Hello everybody,
Long time no see.
Mr. Turner said “Plus the fact that his Selective Service Registration form was the only one, out of many millions actually submitted, that only had 2 digits for the year ( __80), obviously taken from a 2008 PICA stamp – with the 20 removed and the 08 turned upside down.”
At last something new!
I understand that it was supposedly impossible to obtain a PICA 1980 plug but where did the forgers obtain the round Makiki Station Post Office hand stamp with the obsolete USPO designation? Those have to be virtually non-existent. BTW, that is the post office close to Obama’s grandparents apartment.
And where did they get the Document Locator Number (DLN) which is very close to Bruce Henderson’s DLN (He registered on August 2nd, 1980) in the upper right corner?
Also did they really look at “many millions” of registration cards or just a handful? I seem to remember that Sheriff Arpaio said they looked at 17 cards. Maybe Mr. Zullo could clear that up. Was it 17 cards from the Makiki Station or 17 cards from across the country?
Thanks
They (Obama and Henderson) also have similar DLN’s to Darrel Oniwa’s registration card. He registered at the Makiki Station post office.
Certain trolls on this website would lose their shirts and quickly exit with their tails tucked between their legs and never return if they had to debate the Founding Framers of the US Constitution.
Trolls forget that there is a difference between a natural born Citizen and a STATUTORY citizen which is applicable to all sovereign countries of the world.
This debate will never happen, as the Framers of the U.S. Constitution are long since dead.
Certain trolls on this website would do well to visit the Framers graves and sing “Hallelujah”.
The “Founding Framers” would insist that the term “natural born” was defined in English common law as anyone born on US soil who was not the child of an ambassador or an enemy combatant. If you tried to bring up de Vattel they would chuckle and say that their translation of his treatise no where uses the term “natural born citizen”.
John Bingham, primary framer of the 14th Amendment, would insist that the term “natural born citizen” means, as he opined in 1862 (prior to framing the 14th Amendment): “All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and in 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. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural born citizen except what is said in the Constitution in relation to [Native American] Indians”…
…and again in 1866 (concurrent with framing the 14th Amendment): “I find no fault with the introductory clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 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”.
Wait.
I thought the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was Senator Jacob Howard?
Isn’t that the clause that real matters in a debate over natural born citizens?
Bingham, of course, was not a Framer of the U.S. Constitution (which includes the natural-born-citizen clause). As Bingham was not alive for the drafting, debating, and ratification of the U.S. Constitution (which includes the natural-born-citizen clause).
The Supreme Court in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark said:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
This section was written to support the decision that Wong Kim Ark, who was born to Chinese non-citizen parents, was a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment and would have been a natural born US citizen under the common law in place since the Revolution. It really leaves no wiggle room.
And John Bingham also said:
““Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”
He does not say those born in the Republic to citizen parents. He clearly equates “citizens at birth” born within the Republic with “natural born citizens”.
Please provide links to references.
OK I see only some have to provide links here? No problem though.
Wong Kim Ark https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649
John Bingham before Congress: https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/3tyZ76aqAXIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1639&dq=john+bingham+%E2%80%9CWho+are+natural-born+citizens+but+those+born+within+the+Republic?+Those+born+within+the+Republic,+whether+black+or+white,+are+citizens+by+birth+%E2%80%94+nat
Link is here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ueo9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=%22who+are+natural-born+citizens+but+those+born+within+the+republic?%22+those+born+within+the+republic,+whether+black+or+white,+are+citizens+by+birth+%E2%80%94+natural+born+citizens&source=bl&ots=00F0i8LhSX&sig=ACfU3U1ERFEmv8mk9p-YZESVW2EcYo4hew&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpnc2Q1uL1AhWlIEQIHSN9CLkQ6AF6BAgyEAI#v=onepage&q=%22who%20are%20natural-born%20citizens%20but%20those%20born%20within%20the%20republic%3F%22%20those%20born%20within%20the%20republic%2C%20whether%20black%20or%20white%2C%20are%20citizens%20by%20birth%20%E2%80%94%20natural%20born%20citizens&f=true
Why would the prey of King George III want to institute a government using the same rules as those of the oppressing nation?
As they say in England: “Rubbish”.
Many of the Founders were lawyers trained in English law; it is unsurprising they would keep and preserve a legal system that they knew.
Many states, for example, enacted “reception laws,” which essentially said the English common law, prior to the American Revolution, continued to be the common law of the state.
And in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court examined in-depth English common law because it was what was most familiar to the Framers.
Hmmm…are Hobart and Muggs the same person?
Well for one thing the former colonies for the most part intentionally enacted what were called the “Reception Clauses” in either their constitutions or by statute to adopt English common law and applicable Parliamentary statutes as law after the revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute
This would have included the English common law definition for “natural born” unless they specifically changed it. But not a single state enacted a different citizenship definition.
I have no idea who Fred Muggs is or why anyone would believe we are the same person.
“Hmmm…are Hobart and Muggs the same person?”
No, but as they say “great minds think alike”.
Of course since you can see the IP addresses we post with you already knew that.
This is why I canceled my subscription to Newsmax magazine. Last year (or the year before) one of their magazines had a cover with photos of possible future presidential candidates. Several were not natural born citizens, including Cruz and Haley. That was the final straw for me.
You can sure tell when the ‘once reasonably credible” fall to the influence of who is sending them money. Perhaps they will one day join our second largest criminal enterprise fully (MSM). They keep our largest criminal enterprise (Government) front and center.
I agree with this item completely. It seems that even the so-called conservative outlet has no more consideration of the requirements to hold the office than the satanic leftist devildemocommiecrats and their Pravda/Goebbels fake news propagandists do!!!!! I like Cruz and Haley but neither is eligible to be pres or vp just as fuhrer obama wasn’t and dementia’s whore, harris, isn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right on, Tom. Right on!!!
Anyone can have beliefs about what the U.S. Constitution means, including Newsmax. But only courts’ rulings have the force of law.
Every court that considered Obama’s eligibility on the merits, for example, ruled he was a natural-born citizen because he was born in the United States. The same analysis would apply to Haley.
And every court that considered Cruz’s eligibility on the merits ruled he was a natural-born citizen because he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth (from his mother).
DeSantis purportedly was born in Florida. Has anyone seen his birth certificate? If so, were his parents U.S. citizens when he born? If so, did they nonetheless convey Italian citizenship to him?
If natural born citizenship meant born to a citizen mother then why were there at least 8 attempts (all failed) in congress to make it so. I smell an obot.
The attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution to change the eligibility requirements all were done to permit naturalized citizens, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, serve as president.
There were no attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution to redefine natural-born citizen.
The 8 attempts to which Miki Booth referred were all done by Democrats between 2004 and 2008 to permit those born to a non-citizen parent or parents, such as Barack Hussein Obama, to serve as president. There also was 1 attempt by Republicans to counter those 8 attempts by Democrats.
There was even one attempt to actually remove “natural born citizen”.
That’s misleading at best.
The eight attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution all sought to make naturalized citizens eligible to serve as president. Naturalized citizens, by definition, lack U.S. citizen parents.
None of these attempts would have impacted people like Obama, who already were natural-born citizens because they were born in the United States.
There are 2 requirements to be a Natural Born Citizen:
1. Born (i.e. delivered from the womb) on U.S. soil. (NOTE: Obama never proved it … obviously forged Certificate of Live Birth not-withstanding, and Cruz admittedly didn’t make that one either);
2. Born of the seed of a father and the gestation of a mother who were BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of birth. (NOTE: Neither Obama nor Cruz nor Haley made that one.)
Sheesh!
No court has agreed those are requirements to be a natural-born citizen.
Obama provided his Hawaiian birth certificate in 2008 and Cruz provided his Canadian birth certificate in 2016.
Every court that considered Obama’s and Cruz’s on the merits ruled they both were natural-born citizens.
Although Haley’s eligibility has never been challenged in court, there’s no indication that any court would find her ineligible.
Court. Smort. I’m talking the Constitution here … and what the founders meant when they wrote it. Not what some corrupted court ‘ruled’ – in violation of the very document they had all sworn to uphold.
And any un-corrupted American can easily see that Obama’s COLB was a feeble forgery. Plus the fact that his Selective Service Registration form was the only one, out of many millions actually submitted, that only had 2 digits for the year ( __80), obviously taken from a 2008 PICA stamp – with the 20 removed and the 08 turned upside down.
Sheesh!
“…what the founders meant when they wrote it.”
On July 4th, 1776, the people living in the American Colonies went from subjects of Great Britain to citizens of the United States. Those who were actually born in the colonies went from being natural born subjects of Great Britain to being natural born citizens of the United States.
Justice William Johnson made this point in his dissent in Shanks v DuPont,
“It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable”
Anyone, including Newsmax and you, can have beliefs about what the U.S. Constitution means or what the Framers believed. But only courts’ rulings have the force of law.
There’s no evidence Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate was forged. Officials from the State of Hawaii repeatedly certified and verified it.
There’s no evidence Obama’s Selective Service registration was forged. Officials from the Selective Service System verified it.
Haven’t you said this already?
It bears repeating that Newsmax, Neil Turner, Tom Arnold, and everyone else is entitled to their beliefs. Arnold, for example, repeatedly has said he believes Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen.
But courts’ rulings have the force of law. A belief that courts’ rulings don’t control won’t be taken seriously.
That officials verified Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate and Selective Service registration was mentioned for the first time in response to a comment doubting their authenticity.
This comment is a repetition of many made previously. Any other duplicates will not be published.
The same, of course, also should be applied to other repetitious comments.
Neil Turner wrote:
“Court. Smort. I’m talking the Constitution here … and what the founders meant when they wrote it. Not what some corrupted court ‘ruled’ – in violation of the very document they had all sworn to uphold. …”
Actually if you really believed in the Constitution you would have said that we all have the right to vote or not vote for any particular candidate we think is eligible or not. You have every right to believe in the myths about Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service registration. You had every right not to vote for him.
However, both the elections in 2008 and 2012 were held under the Constitution. A number of people filed lawsuits against various candidates and for various reasons (over 200 total actions) and judges of all political persuasions ruled them meritless and in most cases issued meticulously explained decisions based on precedent and law. You could have read every one of them.
We have a Constitution and we have laws. There is no evidence that they were not followed in 2008 and 2012.
On a blog the owner or the commenters who are allowed to comment can say anything they want. However, what counts concerning presidential eligibility is what the 50 states and the various courts have to say. That is the way our system works. So far no one has chosen to enforce a completely concocted definition for natural born citizen that only appeared on a few blogs and some unsuccessful lawsuit filed beginning in 2009.
That is why it is not being taken seriously by Newsmax or anyone else in the media.
Fred Muggs: No, it isn’t. Tom Arnold.