21 Responses to “Trump leads in IA according to the latest average of polls”

1. Thomas
   December 12th, 2015 @ 6:27 pm

   That is actually good , because Trump is a business man, and he will have standing to challenge Cruz on eligibility issues.
   Cruz is not a “Natural born Citizen”
   And if the U.S. Supreme court gets involved,
   then they will have to define what a
   “Natural born Citizen” is

2. Rod Riddle
   December 12th, 2015 @ 6:53 pm

   The GOP Establishment now knows that Trump & Cruz are on their way to winning the Primaries so they have decided to conduct a brokered convention in Cleveland next summer to select their own candidates. Word has it the ticket will be Jeb Bush & John Kasich.

3. bob69
   December 12th, 2015 @ 8:53 pm

   I don’t believe Iowa is that much different from the rest of America. Someone has got to be manipulating the poll numbers of the ineligible, more of the same in spite of his rhetoric, Ted Cruz.

   It makes me ill to see Trump with less than a 15 point lead, anywhere. The GOP is manipulating the polls to try to hurt Trump.

4. karen myers
   December 12th, 2015 @ 11:24 pm

   How did carson get back up to #3?! Iowans just cannot pick good nominees. They should be banned from voting, as they are largely responsible for BHO in the WH in the first place!

5. Onegin
   December 13th, 2015 @ 6:20 am

   Cruz is certainly gaining ground. Time for Trump to call him out on eligibility.

6. Veritas
   December 13th, 2015 @ 6:52 am

   Even using New York State’s Minimalist depiction of the citizenship requirement for POTUS to be “born a citizen,” Cruz seems to have a problem of which all Republicans, albeit registered voters should be aware given CRUZ was born in CANADA to one citizen parent:
   —-

   Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

   https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

   A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent ACQUIRES U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent…….

7. bob69
   December 13th, 2015 @ 9:07 am

   If Trump forced the courts to rule on the eligibility of Cruz, they would find Cruz eligible in order to cover for Obama when the truth of his birthplace outside of America in finally proven.

8. Santa Ana
   December 13th, 2015 @ 9:37 am

   Do Arpaio or Zullo have anything on Cruz?

9. DSP2
   December 13th, 2015 @ 9:58 am

   Does Trump want to use Cruz to bring out the eligibility issue on Barry? You know before the convention nomination, Cruz will have to be dropped from the ticket. The two cannot be on the ballot.

10. Steve Wittlake
    December 13th, 2015 @ 10:57 am

    There is nothing that I have been able to find that shows that Raphael Cruz and Eleanor Darragh were married but both had previous spouses and 2 kids each were living with each spouse or potential spouse. They claim a divorce in 1997 but where is divorce and where is marriage.

11. Steve Wittlake
    December 13th, 2015 @ 11:27 am

    Veritas
    Look at the qualifying Naturalization clause from 24 Dec 1952 to 13 Nov 1986. There is no automatic naturalization clause in this case. He is still an illegal alien and there is no proof of a marriage between parents.
    Additionally he did not qualify for Senate. Will put below.

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

12. Extirpates
    December 13th, 2015 @ 11:42 am

    US citizenship yes, natural born citizenship, NO Way!

13. Steve Wittlake
    December 13th, 2015 @ 1:15 pm

    TED CRUZ IS IN THE US SENATE ILLEGALLY?

    By J.B. Williams
    December 4, 2015
    NewsWithViews.com

    US Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, has been under fire in his bid for the White House due to his Canadian citizenship records which make it quite clear that he does not meet the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, despite the opinion letter from his Harvard friends.

    Following a total lack of vetting on Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and 2012, many insist that no one ever enter the Oval Office again without proper vetting, including proof of meeting all Constitutional requirements for office. Obama’s massive destruction of our Constitutional Republic has placed the issue of Constitutional eligibility on the front burner for many Americans, and partisanship has nothing to do with it.

    In the effort to vet every 2016 presidential candidate, Cruz, who had once stated that both he and Barack Obama were ineligible for the Oval Office, found himself under tight scrutiny from the same people who tried to stop Obama from taking the Oval Office via fraud. Ted placed himself in the crosshairs of constitutionalists who do not care about partisan politics, by seeking an office he is not eligible to seek.

    In investigating Cruz eligibility for the Oval Office, his eligibility for the US Senate came into question…

    The Constitutional requirements for the US Senate are as follows;

    “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

    At 42 years old in 2012, Ted Cruz obviously met the age requirement of 30 years. However, he also needed to meet the requirement of at least “nine Years a Citizen of the United States.” As the Constitution states, one cannot be just an “Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

    The known source for the Founders use of the term natural born Citizen, The Law of Nations, also defines “Inhabitant” as follows;

    § 213. Inhabitants.

    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.”

    Today, the legal term for this condition in the United States is “illegal alien,” someone in our country and living under U.S. jurisdiction, without legally belonging to society. Modern social justice attitudes often refer to these people as “undocumented citizens” which of course are not citizens at all. Our I.R.S. created a new class of “citizen” for the purpose of collecting taxes from illegal aliens, “resident alien” which is an inhabitant (not a citizen) who pays taxes.

    Contrary to current leftist social justice ideologies that view all “illegal aliens” in the U.S. as only “unauthorized” or “undocumented” citizens, our laws identify them as nothing more than “illegal aliens,” or “resident aliens” who pay taxes under I.R.S. codes.

    Further, in any matter of law, authenticated evidence supersedes any and all politically motivated opinions, especially opinions which are either unfounded or poorly founded. Unlike Barack Hussein Obama who posted three forged U.S. Certifications of Live Birth and later a Hawaiian newspaper announcement of his birth to evidence his Oval Office eligibility, Ted Cruz issued his Canadian Birth Certificate as evidence of being “born a citizen of Canada.”

    The above Canadian document is proof of Canadian Citizenship at birth for Senator Ted Cruz. The next piece of authenticated evidence released by Ted Cruz is a Canadian document proving that he remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship in May of 2014, which means, he was still a legal citizen of Canada in 2012 when he ran for, was elected and took the oath of office for the US Senate.

    Again, the above authenticated evidence proves that Ted Cruz was born Canadian in 1970 and remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing his Canadian citizenship in May of 2014. These official documents also prove that Ted Cruz was a legal citizen of Canada in 2012, when he sought and claimed a seat in the U.S. Senate as a legal US citizen.

    As a result of this damning evidence, the Cruz campaign hired friends at Harvard to issue a letter which makes a legal case for how Ted Cruz (and Barack Obama) might be a natural born Citizen of the United States eligible to seek the Oval Office. However, a legal opinion letter is not equal to, nor does it supersede authentic evidence to the contrary.

    It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a CRBA form with a U.S. Consulate at the time of birth.

    The statutes governing this naturalization process state;

    “A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

    According to related U.S. laws governing “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories,” the following conditions had to be met in order for Ted Cruz to legally claim U.S. citizenship at birth via these naturalization statutes, through his mother.

    The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday.

    If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

    • Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
    • Employed with the U.S. government; or
    • Employed with certain international organizations.

    Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

    Ted’s parents were at no time serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, employed by the U.S. Government or by any of the certain international organizations, during their eight years in Canada, between 1966 and 1974. Further, Ted’s father Rafael, was at no time a legal citizen of the United States prior to naturalizing in 2005, from Canada. Rafael’s known legal citizenship status as of 1970 was Cuban, not American.

    This is an EXAMPLE of a US CRBA Form

    Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or parents of Ted Cruz ever filed a CRBA form with the U.S. Government in or around 1970, which is why Ted Cruz released a copy of his Canadian citizenship records and not any U.S. citizenship records. At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.

    As a result, there remains no authentic evidence to support the claims that Ted Cruz is either a “natural born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States.

    Without any form of U.S. Citizenship documentation, and proof of Canadian citizenship at birth in 1970 and holding that legal status until May 2014 when he renounced his birth citizenship to Canada, there is no way for Ted Cruz to prove that he is either “natural born” and eligible for the Oval Office, or “naturalized” prior to 2012, when he sought and accepted a seat in the U.S. Senate as a legal citizen of Canada.

    On the basis of all available evidence today, Ted Cruz is in fact holding a seat in the U.S. Senate illegally, with no documented proof of legal U.S. citizenship whatsoever, and proof of Canadian citizenship between the years of birth in 1970 and May 2014.

    It is unfortunate that a person so many have placed their political faith in has proven willing to defraud his supporters for both votes and millions in campaign donations. But it is better we know now, than after he wins the GOP nomination only to be destroyed by Democrats later, using the same facts and evidence presented here.

    What will the people do with this knowledge? Are they really motivated by restoration of Constitutional compliance, or mere political expediency?

    © 2015 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

    Without any form of U.S. Citizenship documentation, and proof of Canadian citizenship at birth in 1970 and holding that legal status until May 2014 when he renounced his birth citizenship to Canada, there is no way for Ted Cruz to prove that he is either “natural born” and eligible for the Oval Office, or…

14. Jim Buzzell
    December 13th, 2015 @ 2:16 pm

    Here’s my problem with Cruz, Rubio and Jindal: They are all Naturalized Citizen of the US, at best; maybe, they are not Natural Born Citizens of the US. Their birth citizenship follows their father’s, not the mother’s in the case of Cruz. Cruz, born in Canada, his father’s citizenship was Cuban, his mother’s citizenship is US; in the case of Rubio, born his father’s citizenship was Cuban as was his mother’s, and in the case of Jindal, born his father’s citizenship was Indian as was his mother’s; the Law of Nations explains this very well and it’s in the 1st volume of Vattel’s Law of Nations… So why do they feel they are eligible for POTUS when they clearly know they are not?
    Because Obama refused to show is birth certificate and got elected does our Constitution become irrelevant for all future elections?
    Are they simply self-serving their ego? Are they misleading the people who support them? Are they really Progressives trying to hide in Conservative clothes?
    The key to this issue, in my opinion, is in the first sentence of Amendment XIV: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; jurisdiction can only apply if one has legal standing to be in our nation. Illegal aliens have no standing and therefore not subject to US jurisdiction since they are here illegally. Therefore, any off springs born of them is also illegal when born here. This reason that foreign diplomat’s, who are posted here, children born to them here are not US citizens by birth since these diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction.
    Senator Jason M Howard (1866) the author of the 14th Amendment explained this is his published writing and state:
    Amendment XIV
    Section I.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any per­ son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.

    The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.
    Senator Jacob M Howard (MI) 1866 author of the 14th Amendment wrote:
    I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by the virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
    Our Founding Father used the Law of Nation as a reference source when forming our nation and drafting our Constitution and therefore the Law of Nations more definitively describes the requirement referred to in Article II of our Constitution, read this from Volume One:
    §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 [218] 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.”

15. Rod Riddle
    December 13th, 2015 @ 7:57 pm

    Steve, I have a very keen memory of all the players who were actively involved in Dr. Taitz’ vigorous quest to bring ObamaForgeryGate to light 7 years ago. I see you are very interested in the Cruz eligibility subject. Why were you no where to be found during Dr Taitz’ legal cases damning Soebarkah? We’re onto you!

16. concerned
    December 13th, 2015 @ 8:22 pm

    Law Professors Have Shocking Revelation About Trump’s ‘Ban On Muslims’
    two of the most notable legal scholars in our country gave their legal opinion of the moratorium: “No kind of immigration restriction is unconstitutional,”

    https://madworldnews.com/law-professors-trumps-ban-muslims/

17. Rod Riddle
    December 13th, 2015 @ 9:49 pm

    At least one of the IP Addresses matches the Yankee Communist from up around Boston. Guess where I matched him to? None other than “FogBow!” they want to attempt to control the narrative on this.

18. Jerry G
    December 14th, 2015 @ 4:58 am

    The problem with the Republican establishment is that they have little motivation to win. Just look at their last three presidential nominees: Dole, McCain and Romney. Losers all.
    What drives them is their thirst for money and power, who ever wins. Trump is their biggest threat because he is beholden to no one and will do what he wants to do, not what the insiders want him to do. So the Republican convention is probably rigged so that another loser will be nominated rather than Trump. And if that loser is Cruz it doesn’t bother the Republican insiders.

19. The Constitution...
    December 14th, 2015 @ 10:57 am

    Boy, this is ridiculous to have to go to such lengths as to explain why cruz, etc. is/are NOT eligible…So…

    Here’s another slam on trump by two left-wing sources…which I wouldn’t trust on a bet…

    https://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Donald-Trump-GOP-Ted-Cruz-Iowa/2015/12/13/id/705593/?ns_mail_uid=100101061&ns_mail_job=1646370_12132015&s=al&dkt_nbr=z6zfh3z3

20. The Constitution...
    December 14th, 2015 @ 11:44 am

    And Orly, I noticed, too, that the post I made above with Pat buchanan speaking to support Trump or Hillary will win…

    The CBS/other poll shows trump in the lead. So the “garbage poll” with the lefties in Iowa doesn’t mean a thing!

    All of these establishment types are scared to death that Trump is going to win!

    And this includes Bush!

    And a column of a whole page in the Cedar Rapids Gazette Paper, recently, showed the 3 men who want to destroy the natural energy business in Iowa: Rubio, Cruz, and Bush!

    This is the wind energy, that has been doing a great job! And the ethenal business, to help with supplying extra fuel for our transportation needs! And (2) of the guys are ineligible!!

21. Steve Wittlake
    December 15th, 2015 @ 1:08 pm

    Ron Riddle
    I was very involved in the Obama thing both with
    my own website and with Orly Taitz, Pamela Geller, Wmd and a few others. But I quit and gave up the website after Obama was reelected.

Leave a Reply