Ted Cruz Loses Prominent Support After Siding With Violent Leftists Over Donald Trump
Posted on | March 13, 2016 | 4 Comments
Ted Cruz Loses Prominent Support After Siding With Violent Leftists Over Donald Trump
Mar 12th, 2016 3:54 pm by
Last night the Trump campaign called off their Chicago rally due to security threats.] Leftist protesters cheered, beat Trump supporters, …255 Comments
Category: Uncategorized
Comments
4 Responses to “Ted Cruz Loses Prominent Support After Siding With Violent Leftists Over Donald Trump”
Leave a Reply












29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy, 
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld 

March 13th, 2016 @ 8:28 am
I believe Ted Cruz is a lying conniving weasel who would continue the one party oligarchy and protect those complicit in the Obama Fraud.
Trump is our last chance.
March 13th, 2016 @ 11:27 am
https://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-100-ineligible-run-us-presidency
H/T @SueInRockville for her thorough research on a matter that can greatly change the political landscape, especially for #2 ranked Republican Presidential Candidate, Sen Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz has never been (thoroughly) vetted when it comes to his own citizenship claims. He must produce all relevant documents, at least a few of the official papers our own President Obama was erroneously accused of lacking. We know for a fact that he was born in Calgary, so there’s one minor anomaly worth investigating. Legal Scholars like Lawrence Tribe at Harvard Law School & Mary B. McManamon of the University of Delaware’s Widener School of Law agree that Senator Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for the U.S. Presidency. Remember though, voters in the GOP will ignore certain shortcomings that could never be overlooked in a ‘Blah’ President.
They have been basing those opinions mostly on their interpretations in the U.S. Constitution’s Article Two clause of “natural-born” citizen.
Given that Ted Cruz was born in Canada and similar to the US Constitution, any child born in Canada after 1947 was granted full citizenship.. We must look to Canadian Law first.
I have been researching Canadian Immigration Law between 1947-1977 and agree with (experts) them based on the following:
•1. Raphael & Eleanor Cruz emigrated to Canada sometime in the 1960s and in 1968 Mr. Cruz became a naturalized Canadian Citizen. It appears that Eleanor by virtue of her marriage also attained Citizenship one year later and Raphael Eduardo (Ted) Cruz was born December 22, 1970. We have never seen their Marriage License so I am unsure of their actual date of marriage as both were in process of getting divorced.
•2. Until the 1977 changes to Canadian Immigration Law, NO dual citizenship was permitted which means Mrs. Cruz relinquished her US Citizenship and Ted was born to 2 Canadian parents.
•3. If she wanted to be sure Ted was American she needed to file a Consular Record of Birth Abroad (CRBA). We have never seen such a document.
• 4. Upon their return to the U.S. around 1974-1975 I assume Eleanor renounced her Canadian citizenship, reclaimed her U.S. and had Ted naturalized. Again, no documents have ever been released.
It would be great if the media would cover this story, I’d even settle for half as much coverage that they gave to the absurd Obama’s Birth Certificate nonsense’ 24 hour coverage? I suppose this preeminent possible bombshell won’t be big news until Donald Trump sinks his teeth into the controversy and reveals these inexplicable truths that Cruz seems too happy to ignore and deny.
March 13th, 2016 @ 1:03 pm
Yeah, boy, here’s an example of just what we have all been saying about Cruz.
Not only is he ineligibility, but this guy has a mental problem, as well.
The “Funny-Farm” should be looking this guy up, ASAP!
March 13th, 2016 @ 6:13 pm
Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).