America is in a multitude of throes. She is dealing with the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the search for two missing Afghan pilots training at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, GA, and in the midst of a presidential campaign to elect a new president in 2016. All the while, she still suffers the Black Lives Matter protestors, who disrupt the peace, destroy property and engage in looting on a whim, the push to take away the firearms from the citizens who can protect her, and trying to escape from those raping her through shredding of her Constitution.
The election of a new president is critical since this nation has suffered immensely from the divisive community organizer, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah. After suffering through a man who hates the united States, her citizens and everything she represents, this nation needs a president whose allegiance lies solely with her. It brings to light a crucial element of the nominee from both parties regarding eligibility to occupy the office of the president.
Many have declared that Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah is ineligible to hold the office of the presidency based on his failure to satisfy the three eligibility criteria outlined for the president and vice president in the Constitution of the United States of America. Those requirements are found in Article II, Section 1: natural born citizen, 35 years of age or older, and resident within the united States for at least 14 years. Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah cannot meet the natural born citizen requirement and Democrats as much as admitted it, but declared they didn’t care — in 2012, right before the presidential election.
In reviewing the motion filed by Democratic Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, the document held that”… Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Committee has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.” The judge agreed with the defendants — the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee.
That one statement was very tricky. Did Democrats use “qualified” in the manner to mean “eligible” or were they meaning actual qualifications, such as a law degree, experience with government, etc.? The same use of “qualified” appears in the 20th Amendment. So, does eligibility and qualified equate to the same? For the Constitutional purposes of choosing a president, the answer would be yes as no other factors are indicated except the three outlined in the Constitution.
Basically, what the defendants in the case stated, stood upon and defended was the “party right” to nominate whomever it wanted even if the individual was not eligible for the office.
In other various lawsuits challenging the eligibility of Hussein Obama, Democrats contended, along with the plaintiffs lack of standing, “that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility.” All judges declared that none of the plaintiffs had standing. However, one could argue that when these lawsuits were filed, the American citizens had standing due to the violations committed against the Constitution by Obama that resulted in injury to the people.
Another issue muddying the waters with Obama is his adoption by step-father Leo Soetoro. Many contend that Obama has not reverted to his birth name through the proper procedures as his records are sealed from public inquiry. Additionally, at one point, Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, listed Obama’s last name as Soebarkah, a name used in a “cult” in which she was involved. Moreover, the country of Kenya has a birth certificate for Obama which is found in the national archives of Great Britain. In doing a search on a birth certificate for Obama in Kenya, several hits produced copies of birth certificates from Kenya pertaining to Obama with comparisons done with other individuals having birth certificates from Kenya. Whether these are accurate, who knows but it does make one wonder.
In looking at the decision of the court in Tennessee and remembering that the judgment applies only to the litigants, one looks at the potential nominees for the Republican Party for the 2016 elections and their eligibility or qualifications to hold the office.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both have questionable eligibility when it comes to holding the office of the presidency. So, too, does Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum. To understand this better, refer to Publius Huldah’s blog and the essay “‘Natural Born Citizen’ and Coveture.”
Neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio had a father who was a US citizen at the time of their birth. Their fathers were Cuban nationals. Cruz had a US citizen mother and was born on Canadian soil, meaning Cruz held dual citizenship until he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014. Rubio has a Cuban national mother meaning Rubio is the proverbial “anchor baby.” In Cruz’s case, his father obtained US citizenship in 2005 while Rubio’s parents obtained citizenship when he was about 4 or 5 years old. These candidates do not meet all the requirements outlined in the Constitution to be president.
In fact, one can say it is the Republican version of the Obama issue on eligibility. Obama has questionable eligibility since the father listed on his “birth certificate” (a questionable document itself), Barack Obama, Sr., was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth — Kenya was a colony of Great Britain. Also, Obama has never produced US citizenship documents indicating Obama Sr. became a naturalized American.
Because of the questionability of Cruz’s eligibility to hold the office of the presidency, Rep. Alan Grayson has threatened to file a lawsuit if Ted Cruz is nominated and selected by the voters to “be the party’s presidential nomination. Remember, Republicans in many States tried this with the nomination of Obama and the election of Obama; however, the judges, in Obama’s back pocket, either refused to hear the case or ruled plaintiffs did not have standing. Should Grayson bring a lawsuit against Cruz, it is possible the courts would hear the case and rule on it, meaning Cruz might be prevented from running.
While I believe Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and Santorum to be ineligible to hold the office of the presidency, many do not agree. However, with one Democrat challenging Cruz’s eligibility, it stands to reason Democrats are well aware of the requirements to be a natural born citizen but don’t care and extend that definition in the direction of Ted Cruz to prohibit candidates, except their pick, who are ineligible from even appearing on the ballot.
With the aggressiveness of the Democrat party to eradicate the Republican party, one misstep could mean the end of the Republican party, placing this nation under a one party system, until another could form if government would allow it. After all, each party seeks to “rule” the political scene and this nation. Their tactics are different, but the end result is the same. Could it be that Democrats beat Republicans to the punch? Who knows; but, it looks to steer in that direction. It could be Democrats that deal America the “Cruz missile.”