Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate, Is Eligible to Run for President, Canadian Parliament

by Evan McMurry | 10:16 am, August 19th, 2013» 37 comments

Texas Senator and potential 2016 candidate for the Republican nomination Ted Cruz released his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning Newson Sunday, in an attempt to quell a minor birther movement that has questioned Cruz’s American citizenship and eligibility to be president.

The certificate confirms that Cruz was born in Alberta, Canada. As his mother was an American citizen, he is one as well, but as he was born on Canadian soil he also became a Canadian citizen. Cruz maintains citizenship for both nations until he formally renounces one or the other.

The dual citizenship allows him to run for President, and also Canadian parliament, should he choose to do so.

Here’s the certificate:

Widely rumored to be prepping a run for President, Cruz has come under fire from some of the same groups that refused to accept Obama’s nationality. Orly Taitz, perhaps the most famous birther short of Donald Trump, wrote earlier this month that Obama had so corrupted the rule of law that it no longer mattered whether Cruz was legally a citizen.

14 Responses to “Mediate quotes my opinion on the citizenship of Ted Cruz. bottom line, if until the next election we do not find one honest judge who will rule on the merit on Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number 042-68-4425 that failed E-Verify and his fabricated IDs, then we do not have a rule of law and all bets are off”

1. Greg Goss
   August 19th, 2013 @ 8:09 am

   The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So – what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?
   There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ – this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ – this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :
   “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
   That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.
   OK – what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?
   There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.
   1. Born in or out of a country.
   2. Both parents are citizens.
   3. One parent is a citizen.
   4. Neither parent is a citizen.
   The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation – except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.
   Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?
   ‘Natural Born Citizen’ simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

   What is important about the ‘law of nature’? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia – and it means, “The laws of nature are unchangeable”.

   The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a ‘Natural Born Citizen’, because they CAN NOT change the definition, it’s immutable.

   The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

   Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in – CHAPTER 1 — NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a ‘US National’, he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from “COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION”. The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 — NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are ‘citizens at birth’ through these sections, are citizens “THROUGH NATURALIZATION”. Also, these are not really ‘Citizens at birth’, the are ‘Citizens BY birth’. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz ‘spokespeople’ will always say ‘by birth’), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

   That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are ‘naturalized US citizens’, and NOT ‘natural born Citizens’.

2. Perestroika
   August 19th, 2013 @ 9:31 am

   CRUZ IS IMAM BARI’S INSURANCE POLICY.

   CRUZ GIVES IMAM BARI POLITICAL COVER.

   I SMELL A RAT.

3. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   August 19th, 2013 @ 10:43 am

   no, cruz does not use a stolen SSN and he does not use fabricated IDs

4. Francisco
   August 19th, 2013 @ 11:44 am

   Cruz’s father is a Cuban national, naturalized Canadian at the time of Ted’s birth in Canada,and therefore, how could Cruz be ellegible to aspire to the Presidency ?
   This is a red herring prepared by the Save Obama From Jail Committee, by arguing that the only reason Cruz cannot aspire is because he was born in Canada, thus making Obama ellegible by the fact that he was ‘born’ in Hawaii, to an American mother, and that makes Obama a ‘natural born citizen’, even if his putative father was a British subject at the time of his birth.

5. Bob K
   August 19th, 2013 @ 11:44 am

   I examined the document. There are so many layers in Adobe Illustrator that this has to be a fake.

6. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   August 19th, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

   no, it is not. This brings eligibility to the front burner. Cruz does not use a stolen Social Security number and fabricated IDs. There is a big difference between Cruz and Obama. Cruz eligibility might actually help to finally resolve this issue on the merits

7. Paul Jackson
   August 19th, 2013 @ 12:35 pm

   ” dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   August 19th, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

   no, it is not. This brings eligibility to the front burner. Cruz does not use a stolen Social Security number and fabricated IDs. There is a big difference between Cruz and Obama. Cruz eligibility might actually help to finally resolve this issue on the merits”

   And you know there is no stolen SSN or fabricated SSN or other IDs (including this digital representation of a BC) how, exactly? Have you subjected his papers to any scrutiny or forensic examination or had any “legitimate” experts do so?

   No, I didn’t think so.

   That’s call hypocrisy.

   To “restore the rule of law” as you say, shouldn’t all candidates be held to the same standard?

8. Alex Gofen
   August 19th, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

   Dear Orly, I am sorry to admit that even your explanation of the Obama/Cruz situation lacks clarity. The Obama’s counts of criminality are comprised of two items:

   1) Constitutional violations of being not US natural born (his declared father was never a US citizen); and

   2) Plain felonies such as stolen SS number and production of forgeries.

   Cruz’s criminality is comprised of count (1); he is not US natural born. To consider Cruz somehow better because his crime count is smaller is irresponsible and ridiculous.

   This attempt by the Repooobs to promote Cruz is a continuation of their criminal offense to cancel the Constitution by de-facto ignoring it, and also to add a sort of legitimization to their 2008/2012 betrayal of the Constitution and their duty. GOP must be destroyed. DemoGOPy must be finished. Yet this arrogant promotion of Cruz must be used for exposure of BOTH counts of Obama’s illegitimacy and criminality: Not by MIXING them together, but by clearly distinguishing what applies to both of them, and what only to Obama.

9. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   August 19th, 2013 @ 2:25 pm

   you are welcome to provide any proof that there is forgery and fabrication in IDs of Ted Cruz. If and when you find them, let me know. As of now I did not get such evidence from enywhere

10. Rich
    August 19th, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

    Gofen, it is my opinion that you go out of your way to blame Republicans. That is a red flag for me. Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The republicans are forced to deal with a constituency that has been corrupted by democrats. They voted to cut, cap and balance right after the election and what did it get them. Did you give them credit? If they pass a resolution to cut of funds do you think Obama would stop printing money? He is printing it now without congressional approval and it shows that the media is also corrupt because they haven’t pointed that out. Who are you going to blame when there are only democrats left in office because republicans have been blamed by BOTH sides and the media for what democrats are doing.

11. Birdy
    August 19th, 2013 @ 4:49 pm

    Alex, how is not being a natural born citizen a crime? Please site the law that Ted Cruz has broken.

12. Alex Gofen
    August 19th, 2013 @ 6:14 pm

    To Birdy: To be not a US natural born is not a crime indeed, however to be not a US natural born AND campaign as a contender for presidency is a crime of a deliberate violation of the Constitution.

    To Rich: Yes, Repooooblican are damned for the crimes they have committed, the 2008/2012 betrayal being the most grotesque. A list of lesser crimes is also impressive. Whichever they are going (or not going) to fix one item of the list of smaller issues does not matter, because they are definitely wish to bury the main issues – and even to backward-add the legitimacy to them by promoting unconstitutional Cruz. In a civilized nation a party like this must be prosecuted and dismantled forever. No exposure, no Justice is possible if Repooobs (and Dems) stay untouched as though nothing happen.

13. Ed.O
    August 19th, 2013 @ 8:07 pm

    Obama should be prosecuted and jailed and Cruz should not be able to run PERIOD. Either we adhere to the Constitution or not.——The problem for the GOP in the Obama case was McCain’s eligibility. As a result they gave Obama a pass.——Prior to the 2004 election, I believe it was 8 times that the Dems proposed bills that failed to pass to remove the Article 2 Constitution clause. Why??? How come the GOP was silent about it and why???? Where they not aware that the Dems must of had someone in mind to run? —–If Cruz would run and win, some liberal judge, including the Supreme Court, would have an excuse to rule the constitution irrelevant and then there goes the 2nd amendment rights etc. etc. I believe that’s why Obama is breaking so many constitution laws now and the GOP is doing nothing to stop him. It’s part of the NWO to make the constitution irrelevant.

14. horatio
    August 20th, 2013 @ 6:39 am

    Ed.O…”The great thing about the second amendment is;we won’t need it until they try to take it away.”- Thomas Jefferson

Leave a Reply