I recently wrote an article “Birther’s beware! Ted Cruz is eligible to be president!” which you may have read and passed on to others. If anyone has disputed the article to you, linked below is an updated and much better version that should settle the issue once and for all. The law of the land states that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are ineligible to be President because they were born of alien parents and thus not “natural born.” But the law also states that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” and thus is eligible for the Presidency.
Anti-eligibility advocates are correct about Rubio and Jindal (and as we will see below probably about Obama also). But they have gone one bridge too far when they try to say that Ted Cruz is not eligible. The official law of the land states clearly that he is. See why here.
This revised version of the article gets more extensively into the two laws that prove Cruz’s eligibility: the Naturalization Act of 1795 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
What anti-eligibility advocates don’t grasp is that unless the Supreme Court is willing to overturn these two laws in response to a challenge of them, the issue of “natural born citizen” has officially been defined by Congress, which they have a constitutional right to do. The fact that no challenge of these two laws and overturning by the Supreme Court has taken place leaves us with the congressional definition of “natural born citizen.”
This is a very important part of how jurisprudence progresses in America. Legislation is passed by Congress, which then becomes the law of the land. If this law is challenged and deemed “unconstitutional,” the Supreme Court strikes it down. But if this does not take place, it is deemed “constitutional.”
Thus until the 1795 and 1952 immigration laws are challenged in the courts and deemed unconstitutional, they form the backbone of what an “American citizen” is, whether natural born or naturalized. The chances of the Supreme Court overturning these two laws are nil.
Moreover, contrary to the beliefs of anti-eligibility advocates, the term “citizen” is not inferior or secondary to “natural born citizen.” The fact that the term “citizen” is often used in U.S. immigration law instead of “natural born citizen” is because the two terms are interchangeable, with the term “citizen” actually being the superior (or inclusive) term. In other words, there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Thus whenever the law uses the term “citizen,” it means both natural born and naturalized unless clarified otherwise. This has been the case since 1795.
These two laws of 1795 and 1952 are why the Obama eligibility challenges never went anywhere. Obama was born from Ann Dunham, a natural born citizen, which means he was natural born. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 validates this. And it doesn’t make any difference where he was born, inside or outside the borders of the U.S. Section 3 of the Naturalization Act of 1795 validates this. But there is a very important question that we have to ask:
Why then did Obama produce such an obviously forged birth certificate that was immediately torn apart by hundreds of document experts as a fabrication? Something was being covered up. But what?
Here are three of those analyses:
To answer why Obama and his advisors produced such an obviously forged birth certificate, perhaps they were trying to cover up the fact that Ann Dunham and Obama’s father were not legally married, which is a requirement under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Barack’s father was previously married and never divorced. Thus his marriage to Dunham was not legal, just a temporary contrivance to allow him to stay in the U.S. and finish his education.
If this was so, then Dunham would have officially produced a child out-of-wedlock, which apparently would still qualify her baby as “natural born,” but only if she was physically present in the U.S. for a year prior to the birth. The 1952 act states:
For persons born out-of-wedlock, the person is a U.S. citizen if all the following apply: 1) the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth, and 2) the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.
I’m presuming that this means one year directly preceding the birth, i.e., while she was pregnant. So perhaps Obama and his advisors were trying to cover up the fact that Ann Dunham was not legally married and not in America for one year directly prior to the birth. Why precisely they released the forged birth certificate we do not know, but obviously they were trying to cover up something. Was it something that made Obama NOT a “natural born citizen” and thus not eligible? We can’t be sure.
But there is one thing we can be sure of. Hundreds of computer and photo shop experts have testified that the released document in 2011 was highly altered with numbers and names changed and with layers added, thus, making it not a single document released intact by the Hawaii Department of Records, but a “constructed document,” i.e., a fabricated document by rather amateurish computer people (probably some low-level operatives in the administration). Hundreds of experts have testified to this fact of fabrication. Yet not one expert has come forward to testify to the released document’s authenticity. The Obama administration has relied on the gullibility of the American public and the compliance of the media to allow their forgery to pass.
What’s important to realize, however, is that the eligibility issue in regards to Obama is probably too murky to make fruitful. But Obama can be clearly attacked on the grounds of forgery. This is a felony punishable by prison. Obama and his henchmen are definitely guilty of committing a major crime. Merely view the above two videos and read Jerome Corsi’s article for verification.
Now that Obama’s term is winding down, he’s not going to be impeached on the eligibility issue or even the crime of forgery. His term will expire before any such cases could be brought in front of Congress and won. But it would be fitting justice if Obama was eventually taken to criminal court on the crime of forgery. In this way the truth about the man would be known, and his place in history would be rightfully discredited.
Thus if conservative activists would like to tackle the criminal case of forgery, there are valid grounds for proceeding. Perhaps some group with the legal chops and money to back them up will take on the challenge. Perhaps a Trump Justice Department will be willing to prosecute such a crime. That would be true “patriot justice.”
In the absence of such a challenge and prosecution, we will just have to live with the fact that the 44th President of the United States was a most despicable human being and a Marxist arch-enemy of everything our country has stood for over two centuries. Hopefully his term in office will stand well into the future as an example of the horrible damage a Marxist ideologue can do to our country by becoming President. God help us if Hillary follows in his wake.
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Social Critic, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites.
He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values
Email: NelsonHultberg (at) afr.org