Cruz: His Momma Is Natural Born. Thus, So Is He.

Choose Cruz

Stunning pundits who said a conservative could not score high in New Hampshire, congrats to Ted Cruz for finishing strong in the primary.

Okay folks, here is why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president according to the Constitution. First, I wish to give a shout-out to my dear friend, Mike “Mr Constitution” Holler, author of “The Constitution Made Easy.” Mike explained and confirmed Cruz’s eligibility.

In a nutshell, the first immigration law passed by Congress and signed by George Washington says, “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens…” An additional qualification is that the father of such children must have lived at some time in the US. There you have it folks.

The Congressional Research Service published a paper on this question.

“Considering the history of the constitutional provision, the clause’s apparent intent, the English common law expressly applicable in the American colonies and in all of the original states, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural born” subject in England and the American colonies in the 1700s, and the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include those born abroad to U.S. citizens), it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth.” Such interpretation, as evidenced by over a century of American case law, would include as natural born citizens those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship status of one’s parents, or those born abroad of one or more parents who are U.S. citizens (as recognized by statute), as opposed to a person who is not a citizen by birth and is thus an “alien” required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become U.S. Citizen.”

While some question Cruz’s eligibility out of respect for the Constitution, I suspect others have ulterior motives.

GOP establishment elites are exploiting ignorance regarding Cruz’s eligibility because they despise Cruz. Who does this guy think he is bucking the system; standing up for The People against the Washington Cartel; getting into the face of GOP Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell? By the way, McConnell announced that the GOP will not oppose Obama in anyway this year; fearful it would anger voters and hurt the GOP’s chances of winning the WH.

McConnell’s surrender gifted Obama free rein to continue regarding the US Constitution as little more than toilet paper. Thus, our outlaw president will fast-track implementing as many anti-American and anti-God leftist dream initiatives as possible in his remaining time in office.

Ted Cruz has been and continues to be a rare voice sounding-the-alarm and pushing back against Obama repealing our God-given freedom and liberty.

Then, there are those who simply do not believe a true conservative can win the general election. They are using the bogus issue of Cruz’s eligibility as cover for not supporting a fellow Christian and stand up guy.

Voters who do not believe a true conservative can win the presidency are, in essence, saying they believe we have lost our country. Righteousness, morals and traditional values no longer rule the day. Thus, Cruz is too goody-two-shoes for the masses.

Well, I do not believe that folks. I believe that if we rally behind Ted Cruz, a good man can still win the presidency in America.

Proverbs 29:2 – “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

Let’s put the “righteous in authority” folks, Ted Cruz.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman: The Conservative Campaign Committee


Related Articles

19 thoughts on “Cruz: His Momma Is Natural Born. Thus, So Is He.

  1. Cruz, Rubio & King Obolo are NOT ‘natural born.’ Pelosi should be incarcerated as she certified the purported eligibility. Fool me once – it’s on me. Fool me twice …?

    The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood
    Mary Brigid McManamon
    Widener University Delaware Law School
    Catholic University Law Review, v. 64, no. 2 (2015)
    Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-21


  2. i think it’s wonderful that all these constitutional intellectuals (including at least 2 lawyers: cruz & Levin, and their sidekicks involved in cruz’s campaign, or superPACs) have weighed in on the fact that cruz is a natural born citizen based on the Naturalization Act of 1790. what they are FAILING to tell you is that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was REPEALED in 1795; and the term, “natural born citizen” was removed becuz it was never their intent for it to mean that children born abroad were “natural born citizens”; only “naturalized” ones… don’t believe me? check it out for yourself…

    actual constitution statutes (pdf form); chapter XX, Sec 3 addresses children born outside limits & jurisdiction of U.S.; and Sec 4 repeals the Naturalization Act of 1790:

    and here’s a link from Indiana univ.(?); a little more reader friendly:

    so, ANYONE who refuses to do their research (when it’s spoon-fed), willingly allow themselves to be duped by charlatans…

  3. I will gladly vote for Cruz if he is the nominee, and I hope he is. The only true conservative since Rand dropped out. If you don’t vote for Cruz when he is up against Hillary or Bernie because of this then you are a moron, sorry to say. His mother was a citizen, he was born in Canada. We let moms from Mexico and China have kids here and they are automatic citizens but Cruz born to a mother who was a citizen and a father who had lived here doesn’t qualify him to be a natural born citizen….. this is just the dumbest point to get held up on. Wake up!! Our country is on fire and you are nit-picking over the dumbest thing! Pull your heads out!

    1. Socrates was right… ‘When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.’ A pathetic reply most always includes name calling LOL

  4. Ted Cruz is not constitutionally eligible to the Office of President.

    Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

    A natural born citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States, whether natural born, native born or naturalized, at the time of the birth. So Cruz is ineligible on two counts, because (1) he was not born in the United States and (2) one of his parents was not yet a citizen of the United States at the time of Ted’s birth. Perhaps I should mention, having read Professor Elhauge’s opinion, that neither of Ted’s parents was at the time of birth in the service of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. See the opinion of Harvard Law Professor Einer Elhauge at,really-natural-born-american [Sic, the actual title says “Cruz really not ‘natural-born citizen’.”] See also the works of Mario Apuzzo, which I think he will be glad to share on request; his email address is
    I don’t mention that his mother might have become a naturalized Canadian citizen, because I’ve seen no indication that she relinquished her U.S. citizenship before she gave birth to him, so on the assumed facts it’s irrelevant to his presidential eligibility.

    Marco Rubio, also, is not a natural born citizen, because his parents were not citizens of the United States when he was born in Florida.
    Had Ted Cruz been born in the United States, he would not be a natural born citizen, because one of his parents was not a citizen of the United States at the time of Ted’s birth.

    Mitt Romney’s eligibility is questionable because his father’s American citizenship is questionable on highly technical grounds. Come to think of it, Ted’s claim to American citizenship might have similar flaws. Did Ted’s parents register the Canadian birth with the United States embassy or an American consulate in Canada? This might be a requirement imposed to facilitate proof of the child’s citizenship status, rather than an element of citizenship, and could perhaps be cured by filing now, nunc pro tunc. But it would not help prove that he is a natural born citizen; it would help prove that he is not.

    Reverting to the matter of the citizenship of the mother of Ted Cruz, I note that foreign naturalization, per the State Department, can potentially lead to loss of American citizenship. It did so in the case of the pretender. If Ted’s mother effectively renounced or relinquished American citizenship in favor of Canadian citizenship before giving birth to Ted Cruz, then he is not even a citizen of the United States and is not a Senator. The naturalization acts only naturalize the children born abroad of citizens of the United States. Only extensive official investigation can tell whether Ted’s mother ceased to be a United States citizen before Ted’s birth, thus rendering him constitutionally ineligible to the Senate.
    This tends to confirm my long-standing and outspoken suspicion that the Republican leadership accepted as true the lie that the pretender was a natural-born citizen because it wanted to run some Republicans who were not, and hoped the Democrats would accept their ineligibility because the once great and principled Republican Party had accepted the pretender’s ineligibility.

    Ironically, competent official investigation, which I’ve urged in vain for over seven years, would prove that the current pretender to the Office of President was a natural born citizen at birth, born in Hawai’i to two citizen parents. He was adopted by an alien black and a Caucasian American woman, and claims them as his birth parents to perpetrate the fraud that he is half Negro. But the status of natural born citizen can be lost by the loss of American citizenship.

    And even more ironically, the pretender lost the status of natural born citizen when, having come of age, he relinquished American citizenship in favor of his underlying naturalized Indonesian citizenship. He can’t be a natural born citizen when he is no longer a citizen at all.

    The pretender’s American naturalization in 1983 did not cure this defect. Not even if it restored his American citizenship. (And it might not have, if he perjured himself in his oath of citizenship.) It confirmed that the pretender had previously relinquished his United States citizenship (to study as a foreign student) and wanted to restore it (so that he could be a lawyer and public official, and lay the United States open to subjugation).

    The status of natural born citizen can only be acquired at birth. Once lost, it can not be restored by American naturalization. A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. The pretender’s natural born status at birth and his loss of it are discussed extensively in the intelligence assessment American Holocaust: Communist Subjugation of America.

    Too many people conflate citizenship at birth with natural born citizenship. But native born is not natural born, fools to the contrary notwithstanding.
    The 1790 statute purporting to recognize the foreign born as natural born could have been a scrivener’s error. Writing in longhand, the scrivener meant to write “native” and wrote “natural” instead. Scrivener’s error is recognized in the law. It can support a cause of action for rescission or reformation of legal instruments. How many of us have written “June” for “July” when filling out a check? When writing this article, did Tom McKay mean “fifth columnist” when he wrote “third columnist”? It has been established as a strong scientific probability that Thomas Jefferson himself, in writing a major document, wrote “subjects”, erased it, and overwrote “citizens” in referring to Americans.

    Or it could have been that the original drafter of the statute did not realize that “natural born” was a term of art not meaning “native born”. This would be consistent with the use of “considered as”, because the child born abroad would not have been in fact native born. It would also be consistent with scrivener’s error, intending to write “native” and writing “natural” instead.

    Professor Elhauge has pointed out that no less than James Madison moved to correct the error on grounds it could lead to an unconstitutional interpretation:

    Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.
    The contrary position [that Cruz is a natural born citizen] also has two difficulties. It defines a “natural-born citizen” to mean anyone who Congress has defined to be a citizen at birth; that is, anyone born a citizen. This effectively reads the word “natural” out of “natural born citizen.” It also means Congress can by statute change the constitutional limit on who can run for president, when the whole point of constitutional limits is typically that Congress cannot change them.
    See natural-born-american. The posting of the work of others is perfectly legal when duly attributed to them.

    So the former statutory language erroneously relied upon by advocates of the Cruz eligibility was repealed before it was challenged. Had it been challenged, it would have been found unconstitutional to the extent it was interpreted to support the constitutional eligibility of a foreign-born presidential candidate.

    Or its constitutionality might have been saved by construing “natural” in the context as meaning “native”, recognizing that this was probably the original intent. Of course, in the period 1790-1795, it is probable that every presidential candidate relied on being a citizen of the United States when the Constitution came into effect, and did not need to be a natural born citizen. If for example Alexander Hamilton was ever a candidate for President, nobody would have raised the issue of his birth outside the United States with respect to constitutional eligibility, because he was a citizen when the Constitution came into effect. Read the Constitution:
    “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.”
    See Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.

    In the constitutional convention and for over 200 years thereafter, it was understood that natural born meant birth in the United States to two American citizens. No case turned on it, because it was universally understood. Long after the statutory gaff of the 1790 Naturalization Act had been repealed, America’s Supreme Court gave the rule as an example of a proposition that was beyond question.

    When the Constitution speaks of citizenship, it refers to a citizen. When it defines eligibility to the Office of President, it refers to “natural born” citizen. The quoted words must mean something, or they would not be there.
    The questionable candidacy of Mitt Romney and the clearly anti-constitutional candidacies of Cruz and Rubio tend to confirm my long-standing and outspoken suspicion that the Republican establishment refrained from investigating the current pretender’s eligibility in the hope that the Democrats would refrain from questioning the eligibility of Republican candidates in general and Romney, Cruz and Rubio in particular.

    But Florida congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, might challenge the eligibility of Ted Cruz. He should also challenge the eligibility of Marco Rubio. While he’s at it, he should do all he can to cause official investigation of the pretender, not least because the pretender is a Quisling who daily betrays his homeland and plots a master stroke that will cause the death of 90% of America’s populace within the ensuing year. It is incumbent upon Grayson and many others to do these things as their civic, professional and official obligations. They should have the commendation and support of all who believe in a rule of law that enforces well-ordered human liberty, and who wish to prevent the subjugation of the United States.

  5. As far as I’m concerned, eligible or not, I can not in good conscience ever vote for a candidate who was not just born in another country but also held citizenship in that country ALL of his life… until he saw that it could be a problem when he decided to run for POTUS. (Which tells me that he too knows that it is wrong.)
    I will never vote a citizen of another country into our White House.

    1. With your logic then any woman servings for our country overseas and gave birth and that child grew up to be a great individual and ran for President NO Matter what you wouldn’t vote for them. That is very shallow.

  6. The author can ascribe to those of us who question Cruz’s eligibility any motives he likes, but it is the fact that Ted Cruz speaks English like an American that is the reason so many come to his defense on this issue.

    By the logic used by many who claim with certainty that Cruz is eligible, An American woman could give birth to a child in China who could grow up speaking only Mandarin.

    At the age of, say, 40, this child, now a man, could theoretically emigrate to the United States and within a few short years run for president. He would, according to Cruz’s defenders, be an eligible candidate, even though, in most respects, he is Chinese.

    See the problem here?

    1. HL Shancken’s comment is germane. I see the problem, which he points up very well. Professor Elhauge discusses it also. See his opinion in the
      Chicago Sun-Times, cited in my comment, if it has not been moderated away.

    1. It’s silly to talk about the Ted’s qualifications while his constitutional eligibility remains at best unresolved.

    1. It’s silly to talk about the Ted’s qualifications while his constitutional eligibility remains at best unresolved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *