Tag Archives: John McCain

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential campaign, but is he eligible?

This morning, at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), announced his 2016 presidential campaign.

Ted Cruz at Liberty U., March 23, 2015Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drillers. Cruz’s parents returned to Houston in 1974. They divorced when Ted was in law school.

While Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent, Ted’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.

Rafael Cruz was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution when he was 14 years old, but claims he “didn’t know Castro was a Communist.” In 1957, 18-year-old Rafael fled Cuba and landed in Austin, to study at the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics. In 2005, Rafael became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is a pastor in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas.

Article II, Section 1:5 of the United States Constitution says:

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.

So what does “natural born” citizen of the United States mean?

The problem is that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen” nor is the term found in any existing Federal statute. Although the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen parent is a U.S. citizen by modern-day policy, no existing Federal statute declares such a child to be a natural born citizen.

Stephen Tonchen, in his essay “Presidential Eligibility Tutorial,” presents at least three schools of thought on what “natural born citizen” means:

definition #1: “Natural born citizen” is anyone born in the United States

According to a Congressional Research Service memorandum (April 3, 2009), the weight of legal opinion is that anyone born in the United States, except the child of a foreign diplomat, is a natural born citizen:

The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country) … [Maskell (2009), p.5]

But the Heritage Foundation points out that “prior to 2009, the U.S. State Department [had] . . . seeds of doubt regarding the legal status, at birth, of children born in the United States, of alien parents who are in the United States temporarily or illegally.”

Definition #2: “Natural born citizen” also means a foreign-born child of U.S.-citizen parents

In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which said:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

But James Madison, in 1795, expressed concern that someone might erroneously infer from the 1790 Act that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens.

Sen. John McCain was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens, naval officer John S. McCain Jr. and Roberta (Wright) McCain. At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control. In 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding presidential candidate John McCain’s natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.

definition #3: A foreign-born child of a non-U.S. citizen parent cannot be a “natural born citizen”

Then there is the question of whether both the mother and father must be U.S. citizens for their foreign-born child to be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen:

  • According to federal case law prior to 1898, U.S. citizenship at birth was based on the principle of partus sequitur patrem or offspring follows the status of the father.
  • The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen.

In 2004, Senate Bill S.2128: Natural Born Citizen Act gave a definition of “natural born citizen”, but it never became law. As of today, there is no Federal statute that explicitly defines who is, and who is not, a natural born citizen. Even if there were such a statute, it would most likely be unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law that redefines a term that the Constitution uses. Only the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has to date refused to specify what “natural born” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution means. Alternatively, a definition of “natural born citizen” can be supplied via a Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz may be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen according to Definition #2 only if #2 refers to a foreign-born child who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

Ted Cruz is definitely not a “natural born” U.S. citizen under either Definition #1 or Definition #3.

 

Ted Cruz graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995, so he knows full well the above. And yet it was only after the Dallas Morning News, in August 2013, pointed out that Cruz had dual Canadian-American citizenship that he applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. On May 14, 2014, Cruz ceased being a citizen of Canada.

Now you know why the GOP never contested Barack Obama’s suspect “natural born” citizenship — he who supposedly was born in Honolulu, Hawaii (but document forensics experts say his Hawaii birth certificate is fraudulent) of a U.S. citizen mother but a Kenyan father who was then a subject of Great Britain because Kenya was then a British colony.

See also:

~Éowyn

GOP elites tell Conservatives and Tea Party to shut up

The bastards have already forgotten that we elected and reelected them to office.

Citing Politico as her source, Melanie Batley reports for NewsMax, Nov. 6, 2014, that just two days after their historic midterm victories, the Republican congressional leadership is “sending out signals” to the Republican rank-and-file, especially the so-called “hard right,” that infighting and gridlock will not be tolerated.

In other words, they are telling Conservatives and the Tea Party to shut up.

The way Politico put it was: “Emboldened by sweeping midterm election victories, Republican leaders are vowing not to repeat the errors of past years, when messy fiscal fights eroded public confidence in Washington and became the hallmark of the GOP-controlled House.” That’s because the GOP leadership feel justified in demanding loyalty from the conservative wing of the party, given that the victories from this election cycle were mainly the result of the party’s early backing of establishment candidates, some of whom are from moderate districts.

Mitch McConnell

1. Incoming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he will not go along with conservative calls to use the debt ceiling as leverage for spending cuts, an insistence by Tea Party members which triggered the government shutdown last year. McConnell has already vowed that there will not be a government shutdown on his watch. And in his victory speech Tuesday night, McConnell made it clear he would also be extending the olive branch to Barack Obama, saying the GOP has a “duty” to work with the White House on issues they agree on. “I’m pretty familiar with our conference including the new members who are coming in,” McConnell said. “The vast majority of them don’t feel they were sent to Washington to fight all the time.”

boehner_balling

2. House Speaker John Boehner is telling colleagues he plans to be a “responsible leader.” By that, he means the party needs to be unified to take advantage of its political dominance.

Rep. Steve StiversIn June 2014, Rep. Stiver’s chief of staff Adam Kuhn was forced for resign after his ex-lover, former porn star Jennifer Allbaugh posted a photo of Kuhn’s penis on Twitter. (Source)

3. Ohio GOP Rep. Steve Stivers, a close ally of Boehner, told Politico, “What this election did is give us a working majority where we have at least 218 votes to pass a Republican agenda, and what I think will be a responsible Republican agenda. We’re not veering hard right, we’re playing it straight down the fairway, to use a Boehner-ism.”

Boehner and McConnell have already set out their legislative agenda, saying in a joint editorial that their top priority is to help the struggling middle class, and a first step will be passing many of the bills the House has already approved. “Enacting such measures early in the new session will signal that the logjam in Washington has been broken, and help to establish a foundation of certainty and stability that both parties can build upon,” they wrote.

The GOP elites maintain that unity could be paramount to maintaining the Senate majority in 2016, when a number of senators from blue and purple states are up for re-election.

john-mccain-lord-of-the-tarp1

Meanwhile, to make your Saturday even better [sarc], now that Republicans are in control of the Senate, John McCain is set to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The same warmonger McCain who has never met a war he doesn’t want to drag the United States into.

Recall that McCain was a big proponent of a U.S. war in Syria. On September 4, 2013, he was one of three Republicans who joined 7 Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in approving a Senate resolution granting Obama authority to conduct military strikes on Syria’s government.

See:

~Eowyn

British Intelligence: Obama born in Kenya; CIA’s DNA test shows Dunhams not his grandparents

Michael Shrimpton is a British barrister (attorney), an adviser to British intelligence, and a serious person.

He also is a contributing columnist for the blog, Veterans Today. This is his biographical sketch on Veterans Today:

Michael Shrimpton

Shrimpton has his own blog, The Shrimpton Report. His email address is michael@mshrimpton.co.uk. And Wikipedia used to have an entry on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton), but if you go to that URL, you’ll get the messsage: “This page has been deleted”.

After you’ve read this post, you’ll know why Wikipedia scrubbed its page on Michael Shrimpton.

Shrimpton was a speaker at a forum, date unknown, but probably sometime in 2008 (more on this later). Beginning at the 1:42 mark of the video below, Shrimpton dropped a bombshell about Obama.

Shrimpton made the following startling claims:

  1. Although Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is said to have been born on August 4, 1961, he actually was born in 1960.
  2. Obama’s alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was not pregnant in July 1961.
  3. Although BHO is said to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, he actually was born in Mombasa, Kenya, which was then British territory, which means British intelligence has his records.
  4. The C.I.A. surreptiously took a DNA sample of Obama at a fundraising dinner and ran a test, but could not match Obama’s DNA with his [maternal] grandparents, the Dunhams.
  5. Former New York governor and GOP presidential aspirant Rudy Giuliani told Shrimpton at a recent lunch that he (Giuliani) knows all about this. Giuliani had hoped he would be the GOP presidential candidate and he’d then use the information against the Democrats.
  6. The Clintons (Bill and Hillary) also know about this.

For the rest of the 1½ hour video, Shrimpton talked about British politics and the European Union. However, at the 1:09:30 mark, a man in the audience asked Shrimpton a question about Obama and Kenya. In his response, beginning at about the 1:11:55 mark, Shrimpton alluded to the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign as if it was ongoing as he spoke, which suggests that the forum took place in 2008. Shrimpton also made these additional claims:

  1. He believes, given the above British intelligence on the year (1960, not 1961) and place (Kenya, not USA) of Obama’s birth, Obama would “soon be pressured into withdrawing” from the presidential race. With the benefit of hindsight, we of course know that didn’t happen.
  2. Senator John Edwards also knows because Shrimpton had briefed him.
  3. Former CIA director (under Bill Clinton) also knows. Shrimpton does not name him. Clinton had 3 successive CIA directors: James Woolsey, John Deutsch, and George Tenet.
  4. The Kenyan government, of course, knows.
  5. The UK newspaper Daily Telegraph also knows.
  6. The Honolulu press is aware that Obama’s birth records in Honolulu’s Queens Medical Center are fake. The Honolulu Advertiser knows this.
  7. Sen. John McCain knows.
  8. British Intelligence knows because MI5 got the Nairobi Special Intelligence files when Kenya became independent.
  9. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations from 1997 to 2006, also knows.
  10. Shrimpton also said something very strange — that Obama’s half-sister is actually his full sister, and that the sister is “missing.” (The only “half sister” of Obama about whom we are told is Maya Soetoro-Ng, the daughter of Stanley Ann Dunham and her Indonesian husband, Lolo Soetoro.)

IN OTHER WORDS, JUST ABOUT EVERY FRIGGING POLITICIAN IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD KNOWS. AND EVERY FRIGGING ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. EVEN WORSE, THEY MOCK AND DEMONIZE US, CALLING US CRAZY CONSPIRACY “BIRTHERS”.

H/t Gaia Media, via Birther Report.

~Eowyn

Arizona bill protects businesses that refuse to serve same-sex weddings

Do you remember Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado who was ordered by administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer to bake a wedding cake for two homosexuals or face fines, even though doing so violates Phillips’ Christian religious beliefs?

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado

The Arizona state legislator just passed a bill, SB 1062: Exercise of Religion, to protect business owners from what happened to Phillips.

Catherine Briggs reports for LifeSiteNews, Feb. 25, 2014, that SB 1062 would grant business owners the right to refuse service to clients on the basis of religious objections.

In the past few years, there have been several cases of business owners facing lawsuits after refusing to provide their services to homosexual couples at their “weddings.” This bill would prevent such suits from being filed in Arizona and would protect objecting business owners from facing heavy fines.

The bill, which now awaits the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer, has been lambasted as discriminatory by its opponents, but its defenders say it’s a necessary protection for religious freedom.

As we would expect, Democrats oppose SB 1062, including all four of Arizona’s Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s religion and belief program, said, “Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but it’s not a blank check to harm others or impose our faith on our neighbors.”  The ACLU opposes the legislation. 

But the bill also is opposed by Republicans, including:

  • Arizona’s two federal senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, have urged Gov. Brewer to veto SB 1062.
  • Of Arizona’s Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives, one has refused to comment while the other four have not yet commented.

The reaction to SB 1062 from the media has been heated to say the least.  In an interview with CNN news anchor Chris Cuomo, Kelly Fiedorek, attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, tried explaining the bill and how it would protect religious freedom. She says:

“[There’s] a basic difference between denying someone a cup of coffee or a piece of pizza or selling someone a pencil versus forcing someone to use their creative ability to create a message to support an event, to support an idea that goes against their beliefs. For example, we would not force a Muslim to participate in a Koran-burning ceremony. We wouldn’t ask a black photographer and force them to go take a picture of a KKK event. This is America and in America we should be able to live freely and not be forced to endorse ideas.”

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, responded to the fiery reaction to the passing of SB 1062 in a statement on Saturday:

“The attacks on SB 1062 show politics at its absolute worse. They represent precisely why so many people are sick of the modern political debate. Instead of having an honest discussion about the true meaning of religious liberty, opponents of the bill have hijacked this discussion through lies, personal attacks, and irresponsible reporting. I urge Governor Brewer to send a clear message to the country that in Arizona, everyone, regardless of their faith, will be protected in Arizona by signing SB 1062.”

The bill now awaits Gov. Jan Brewer’s signing or veto sometime this week. Brewer vetoed a similar bill last year during a self-imposed freeze on signing legislation until a budget was passed for the 2014 fiscal year.

According to CNN, Brewer is expected to veto what the liberal media insist on calling “the anti-gay bill” because “Sources say she is concerned about this bill taking away from other issues she is now pressing, such as overhauling Arizona’s child protective services system.”

Here’s contact info for Gov. Brewer:

The Honorable Janice K. Brewer
Arizona Governor
Executive Tower
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Phone Numbers
Phoenix Office: (602) 542-4331
Tucson Office: (520) 628-6580
In-State Toll Free: 1-800-253-0883 (outside Maricopa County only)

Fax Number: (602) 542-1381

To send an email, click here.

~Eowyn

Obama admin considering a war against Syria, again

Dr. Eowyn:

We the People stopped Pres. Lucifer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, from waging war against Syria last year. Now he’s trying to do it again.

Once again, we must mobilize and stop this demonic warmonger and his equally demonic accomplice, John McCain. Spread the word! Let your family, friends, and acquaintances know, via email, Twitter, Facebook…. Let’s stop this SOB.

See also the posts FOTM’s published last year on our “Syria War” page. Click here.

~Eowyn

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

Free Syrian ArmyRebel insurgents of the Free Syrian Army

In his essay of Feb. 17, 2014,The United States of Decline,” for the National Review, Deroy Murdock, a fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford University, writes that Obama’s Syrian policy is “a miserable flop”:

“… embattled Syrians flee the city of Homs while they and their United Nations protectors dodge incoming mortar shells. This sorry spectacle has exposed Obama’s Syrian policy as a miserable flop. So does the fact that Syrian president Bashar Assad has handed over only 4 percent of the chemical weapons that his deal last September with Obama and Vladimir Putin was supposed to neutralize. According to GOP senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Secretary of State John Kerry privately conceded to them that Obama’s approach in Syria has failed.”

After bringing the United States to the…

View original 518 more words

Great Op-Ed From Forbes.

Keep pushing this folks. Liberalism is on the run. Skippy lied and progressivism will die.   :lol:

4527428186_6a8f43375d

————————————————————————————-

Obamacare Will Be Repealed Well In Advance Of The 2014 Elections

Steven Hayward, Contributor        http://www.forbes.com        OP/ED

Prediction: even ifHealthCare.gov is fixed by the end of the month (unlikely), Obamacare is going to be repealed well in advance of next year’s election.  And if the website continues to fail, the push for repeal—from endangered Democrats—will occur very rapidly.  The website is a sideshow: the real action is the number of people and businesses who are losing their health plans or having to pay a lot more.  Fixing the website will only delay the inevitable.

It is important to remember why it was so important for Obama to promise repeatedly that “if you like your health insurance/doctor, you can keep your health insurance/doctor.”  Cast your mind back to the ignominious collapse of Hillarycare in 1994.  Hillarycare came out of the box in September 1993 to high public support according to the early polls.  This was not a surprise.  Opinion polls for decades have shown a large majority of Americans support the general idea of universal health coverage.  But Hillarycare came apart as the bureaucratic details came out, the most important one being that you couldn’t be sure you’d be able to keep your doctors or select specialists of your choice.  The Clintons refused to consider a compromise, but even with large Democratic Senate and House majorities the bill was so dead it was never brought up for a vote.

Remember “Harry and Louise”?  Obama did, which is why he portrayed Obamacare as simply expanding coverage to the uninsured, and improving coverage for the underinsured while leaving the already insured undisturbed.  But the redistributive arithmetic of Obamacare’s architecture could never add up, which is what the bureaucrats knew early on—as early as 2010 according to many documents that have leaked.  The wonder is that Obama’s political team didn’t see this coming and prepare a pre-emptive strategy for dealing with the inevitable exposure of the duplicity at the heart of Obamacare’s logic.  Now that people are losing their insurance and finding that they may not be able to keep their doctor after all, Obamacare has become the domestic policy equivalent of the Iraq War: a protracted fiasco that is proving fatal to a president’s credibility and approval rating.  The only thing missing is calling in FEMA to help fix this Category-5 political disaster.

Senate Democrats endangered for re-election will lead the charge for repeal perhaps as soon as January, after they get an earful over the Christmas break.

(WSJ: ‘Obamacare Dozen’ flee for political cover…)

They’ll call it “reform,” and clothe it in calls for delaying the individual mandate and allowing people and businesses to keep their existing health insurance policies.  But it is probably too late to go back in many cases.  With the political damage guaranteed to continue, the momentum toward repeal will be unstoppable.  Democrats will not want to face the voters next November with the albatross of Obamacare.

The politics of the repeal effort will be a game theorist’s dream.  Tea Party Republicans will resist “reforms” to Obamacare in favor of complete repeal.  Democrats will try to turn the tables and set up Republicans as obstacles to reform, hoping to inoculate themselves prospectively from mayhem at the polls next November. The House might want to insist that the Senate go first; after all, it was the Senate version of the bill that the House had to swallow after Scott Brown’s election in January 2010.  The House can rightly insist that the Senate needs to clean up the mess they made.  Obama may well give Capitol Hill Democrats a pass on a repeal vote, and veto any bill that emerges.  He’ll never face the voters again.

This wouldn’t be the first time that a health care entitlement was repealed.  The same thing happened in the late 1980s with catastrophic coverage for seniors.  Because seniors were made to pay for their benefits under that scheme, the uproar forced Congress to repeal the measure barely a year after it went into effect.  Obamacare looks to be on the same political trajectory, and for the same reason.  Obamacare represents the crisis of big government; the limits of administrative government have finally been breached.  For the first time ever, some polls are showing a majority of Americans doubting the goal of universal health coverage.

The hazard of the moment is that a compromise “reform” that drops the mandate and attempts to restore the insurance status quo ante could leave us with an unfunded expansion of Medicaid and a badly disrupted private insurance market.  Republicans should avoid both the political traps and a new fiscal time bomb by being ready with a serious replacement policy, based on the premium support tax credit ideas that John McCain advocated (poorly) in 2008.  While anxious liberals are in dismay, they should recognize that Obamacare may well have achieved its chief purpose of making universal or at least greatly expanded health coverage a fixture of American social policy. The cost to liberalism may prove fatal, however.

  ~Steve~                                   http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2013/11/11/obamacare-will-be-repealed-well-in-advance-of-the-2014-elections/

McCain ain’t leaving the Senate – ever

JohnMcCainJoker

A month ago, warmonger RINO John McCain hinted that he may retire in 2016.

He was just toying with us, yanking our chains.

Instead of retiring, he’s doing the exact opposite.

The Washington Post reports that this morning, on KFYI-AM in Phoenix, Arizona, McCain said he is considering running for another term in 2016, when he would be 80 years old: “I’m seriously thinking about maybe giving another opportunity for you to vote for or against me in a few years from now. I’m seriously giving that a lot of thought.”

Radio host Barry Young didn’t believe his ears. So he asked McCain to clarify if he was saying he might run again.

McCain said: “That would not be wrong.”

Politicians don’t ever retire. They leave office when they’re carted off in a coffin. The allure of power is that compelling.

And now you will have to excuse me while I go to the bathroom and puke. svomit_100-121

~Eowyn