Source: http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2015/04/isis-al-qaeda-preps-with-obama.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:51:51+00:00

Document:
Brianroy's Input: ISIS / Al Qaeda Preps With Obama Administration To Attack U.S At Texas (and New Mexico)? Will Natural Born Citizen Clause NOT Be Used To Stop Obama Since It Disqualifies Ted Cruz From Presidential Aspirations?
ISIS / Al Qaeda Preps With Obama Administration To Attack U.S At Texas (and New Mexico)? Will Natural Born Citizen Clause NOT Be Used To Stop Obama Since It Disqualifies Ted Cruz From Presidential Aspirations?
For the past weeks and months, I have written or commented many alleged Conservative and mainstream Media here and abroad who are hypocrites where the Natural Born Citizen clause of the United States Constitution is concerned.
It seems that very few are even concerned in the Conservative and Alternative Media about the fact that they are aiding and abetting a Globalist takeover of America, and really could care less about it. To them, it is all about the money, of selling books, making paid appearances, getting people stoked with the outward symptoms or playing politics as if we were living in the early 1990s in a very different circumstance than what we are facing today.
We are in a dangerous time in America, where multiple generations have been dumbed down and stripped of individuality and taught immorality and anti-Christian values, calling evil good and good as evil. The globalist secret societies and the Communists of Russia and China as well as dedicated jihadi Muslim leaders and Muslim royalty funding jihadi activities, these have all merged under the umbrella of the Democratic National Committee without a doubt as of 2005, and have infected the Republican Party since 2007, most certainly first gaining President George W. Bush and certain leadership members of the Republican National Committee, and then later gaining Speaker of the House John Boehner, as well as Senators John McCain and Mitch McConnell into their confidence to betray the Constitution of the United States of America.
Right now, certain elements of the Islamic Proselytizing Illegal Obama Administration are orchestrating a false flag operation in which born-again Christian Conservatives will be set up and blamed for some terrorist action as was planted recently in an alleged incident regarding the hacking of Federal agent home addresses and planting fake messages to make it look like a Christian or Christians did it.
The question is, is it just a hypothetical war gaming "what if", to ask or question the possibility the ISIS could be being primed by the Obama Administration Drug Enforcement Agency to now become a new drug gang battling for "turf", to be armed and supplied to then outgun Law Enforcement to help further weaponize and Federalize all Police at all government levels from municipal on up, later on? Or will a more likely possibility, one to which they of Al Qaeda / Isis are more experienced and attuned to, acts of war and terrorism, that will be what is being planned by Obama -- (a current citizen of Kenya and Indonesia while illegally occupying the Presidency) -- and others in his illegal administration for our future? Could it really be that a most definite act of war and an aiding and abetting America's enemies to invade and war on the United States is about to really be carried out?
"The government watchdog group Judicial Watch cites Mexican government and military officials as saying the terror group ISIS, or Islamic State, has two camps in Mexico near the U.S. border.
One of the camps is reportedly located in Anapra, an area just west of Ciudad Juárez, and the other is near Puerto Palomas, a few miles from Columbus, New Mexico.
The Anapra area is dominated by the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (Juárez Cartel), La Línea (the enforcement arm of the cartel) and the Barrio Azteca (a gang originally formed in the jails of El Paso), according to the Judicial Watch report.
A Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector told Judicial Watch human traffickers, known as coyotes, working for the Juárez Cartel are smuggling IS terrorists into the United States through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas."
"A disturbing message accompanying hacked material containing the addresses and personal details of US government officials cites ‘ 911 treason’, and a ‘future FEMA camp planned public crackdown’ as justification for making the details public.
The material was apparently hacked from an unknown source, and the insinuation is that ‘right wing extremists’ are to blame.
The personal details of Homeland Security and FBI officials are contained within the documents, according to reports.
JESUS IS LORD, AND THE PUBLIC IS IN CHARGE, NOT THESE SATANIC NWO STOOGES” "
Could it really happen? It seems as if we have a very real problem, one where we have enemies of the United States ready to start a war of terrorism upon the very citizens of the United States as if WE ALL are the enemy. Could it really happen, that in the near future an activity of terrorist acts on a grand scale will carried out by members of ISIS / Al Qaeda who have been aided and abetted by the Obama Administration, placed in strategic locations just inside the United States and across the border allegedly at perhaps as many as at least four locations in Texas and New Mexico? Realistically, could we be looking at upwards of 500 Al Qaeda to perhaps thousands as sleepers among us around the nation who may be involved in a future Obama planned terrorist attack on the United States with more than 30 FBI and Homeland Security advisers and handlers who will direct the ones at the Southern U.S. Border States of New Mexico and Texas? Could the operation be far more larger and worse than even that assessment?
John Brennan, head of C.I.A., is a dedicated Muslim actively helping ISIS / Al Qaeda kill all Christians in the Middle East by seeing ISIS / Al Qaeda logistically supplied and supplied for that purpose: Christian genocide. The CIA as of July 2013 now actively engages in DOMESTIC Propaganda as if US Citizens are the enemy, so could elements of CIA recruited or directed abroad by John Brennan in Syria and Iraq, be those used and employed to attack us here in the United States, especially in Texas (as well as New Mexico) and other States?
Wouldn't the logical next step for them after supporting an Al Qaeda series of terrorist attacks in the State of Texas, (as well as the State of New Mexico and elsewhere) be to have U.S. Army troops based out of Georgia to be called in and ordered to fire on local Law Enforcement in aiding and abetting an Al Qaeda series of terror attacks, and to label the Police as Christian Terrorists disguised as police, with a willing Council on Foreign Relations driven Mainstream Media spinning that very narrative? After which, the Obama Administration would likely then blame all born again Christians with fake evidence, and demand martial law for perhaps the entire State of Texas, and seek to perhaps ban firearms for one entire state, with the notion, that if they can false flag and by martial law disarm the entire State of Texas, they can nuke a small city (be it hot or simply dirty / severely contaminate it) and false flag and disarm the nation? Could such a scenario really happen?
And even though it could potentially mostly be carried out to almost all the stages except that of full state disarmament of Texas itself, how do we stop it legally and peacefully even if WE THE PEOPLE of the United States collectively and as one united together could stop it? By removal of the ones guilty of TREASON, of high crimes against the United States and the PEOPLE of the United States before it happens. The only way, in my analysis, is a legal action based on carrying out the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen clause.
scattering their attention span and altering their focus?
History will also judge those in the media and having shows reaching millions, who when they should have spoken up, remained silent (just as the Germans did in regard to the Jews and Christians being hauled away to death in the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s). Yes, even having learned -- they haven't learned. Those in positions of influence through large audiences or positions of political power almost without exception by their actions and words seem to care more about temporary $$$ for themselves, as if that ($$$) would somehow save them from a coming Totalitarianism. $$$ did not work to save those who were not top international bankers or top international industrialist rich from a totalitarian Hitler, and even those super influential banking and industrialist rich would not have been spared at all (not a single one) had they lived in a Communist or Soviet Russia, or a Maoist Communist China in the first 15 years after either being taken over.
Is it even possible anymore, to get any of these who are the most influential to mass groups of citizens to defend and uphold the Constitution against the Constitution's domestic enemies anymore? And even those that could make such a decision to truly follow the Constitution in circles of influence where they can affect or help sway the opinions of millions, these will likely never dare read this article, especially if they demand blind obedience to support Barack Obama or Ted Cruz because of political party affiliation or hypocritically because of their guy's ethnicity.
Ted Cruz is not someone that should be uplifted as if he were a Republican Messiah figure, just as Barack isn't anything more than a slimy Communist-Socialist Muslim con-man with a Media following that seeks to make him into a living myth, and then knowing the lies, pretend that the myth is the new reality.
But maybe in order to see the danger of Obama as NOT being Constitutional to be in office, a large section of the public might be awakened with the acknowledgement that Ted Cruz is not qualified, and then upon seeing WHY Cruz (and others) would not qualify, perhaps apply the same to Obama and realize they have be duped, and demand the man's IMPEACHMENT as a fraud and as a usurper to an office it is Constitutionally illegal for him to hold, and where any law he signs, it is VOID as if no law (according to prior Supreme Court rulings). It is a very slim chance, and not likely short of a massive Brennan CIA and Obama Homeland Security led terror attack upon the citizens of the United States, who only then would perhaps wake the hell up...but even if they do not awaken, it isn't because some of us didn't try to reach them past the gate-keepers and censors of even the alleged Conservative and Alternative Media.
Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Jr.
THAT IS A LEGAL FACT!!!
Rafael Edward Cruz, Jr.: He was born as a Canadian Born citizen with paternal power citizenship claim at birth to Cuba. To promote his candidacy for President in 2016, is to violate and go actively in conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States to illegally place another foreigner into the U.S. Presidency with the current usurper in office, and set a 2 major party precedent to discard the current Constitution of the Republic?
So just what makes Ted Cruz, a jus soli born CANADIAN NATIONAL who retained his BIRTH citizenship (and for all we know STILL POSSESSES it despite claiming only months ago he would junk it) as being in any way eligible to the U.S. Presidency? Not a damn thing.
Marco Rubio was born to two Cuban immigrants in Miami, Florida, who did not naturalize to the United States as its citizens until 1975. Until such naturalization of the parents occurred, any children born in the United States to Mario and Oria Rubio, would be born as dual citizens. Marco would only be a United States Citizen by operation of Law, NOT by operation of nature, because at anytime up until Mario and Oria Rubio took the oath to become United States Citizens, they could have returned to Cuba or simply moved to any other country they wished as Cuban exiles, retaining their heritage and national identity as Cubans only. Marco's maternal grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia legally immigrated with the intent to naturalize, returned to Cuba, then re-entered the United States as an operated as illegal alien or "undocumented worker" during the years of 1962 to 1966. Marco was NOT born of United States Citizens at the time of his birth, and there was no 1802 statute that allowed his parents to the age of 21 to naturalize from the time of an alleged U.S. soil birth to make any claim as to a U.S. soil birth designated as an judicial exemption in how "natural born citizen " might possibly be interpreted as Senator Bayard related to A.P. Hinman over the issue of President Chester A. Arthur.
In fact, if we consider that naturalization is an operation of law, and that by naturalization or by operation of Law a child is accepted as a U.S. Citizen rather than by natural circumstances involving indigenous obviousness in nature as to birth location and obvious species, then we must also realize that technically Senator Bayard never exempts Chester A. Arthur, because if a law has to be forced to resolve an issue, it is in no way natural that a child be a sole allegiance born citizen as is required by the phrase "Natural Born Citizen".
shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
which led to the "Natural Born Citizen " clause being eventually introduced into the Constitution we now have. John Jay was formerly a President of the Confederacy of the United States, which government was dissolved in 1787, and then became the first Chief Justice in this Republic of the United States after the Confederacy was dissolved.
that reinstates Obama and any born to at least one Kenyan national parent abroad at any time), and as Rafael Edward Cruz had to Canada and Cuba at birth and remained so until age 43 (or so we are told he gave up his Canadian Citizenship), or to Cuba as Marco Rubio had at the time of his birth and for 4 years after.
Without a U.S. Citizen Father, it is impossible to have any child born as a United States Natural Born Citizen.
Vattel states in regard to the Law of Nations in effect (which John Jay, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and other founders read from the 1760s to the 1790s).
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also. Obama's father did NOT immigrate to the United States, he simply studied as a student on VISA here. His child Barack Jr. follows the condition of his father as an alien national at birth. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and stayed there for years afterwards, with the father attaching himself to that society. Both Ted Cruz and Brack Hussein Obama II are NOT United States Natural Born Citizens by any law or any law of nature.
The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen". In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.
From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old. If he was not at least 21, technically (under constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.
As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote. The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism. For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue.
To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born. This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.
Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. Some claim that the children of Citizens is enough in itself, but the term "citizens" means both parents must be United States citizen parents, as was stated similarly by the Court in Minor v. Happersett decades later.
The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.
In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."
In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
"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.
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
So while we see that the term “parents” is used, the “rights” and “condition” of Citizenship is passed on through the Citizen Father (or the presumption of one, in case of bastardization when he is presumed a US Citizen in absentia from the Citizen Mother).
When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."
In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless. The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding. With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years. But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution.
On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawal by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing.
"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."
Dual Citizenship at birth denies one the claim of being a 14th Amendment Citizen AND that of being a United States Natural Born Citizen.
The American Legal Review issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (the same who co-prosecuted the Wong Kim Ark landmark citizenship case of 1898) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.
"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens."
He also quoted that "The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
Native born” does not mean quite the same thing."
Rafael Edawrd "Ted" Cruz, Jr. and Barack Hussein Obama II (aka. Barry Soetoro) FAIL to measure up to that very basic sole allegiance to the United States at birth, and possession of a United States Citizen Father, or of an operation of NATURE which allows for NO PREFERENCE but a design and natural order that they can ONLY BE United States Citizens at birth and nothing else. Marco Rubio would have to result to the Wong Kim Ark defense, which demonstrates that from birth to age 21 he had no other allegiance interests, and lived solely in the United States. But because neither parents were citizens at the time of birth, Marco Antonio Rubio is naturalized at birth by operation of law, and this naturalization is doubly confirmed by his father's naturalization some 4 long years later after his birth.
What about the Mother Effect On Citizenship Of The Child?
In regard to having a UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, the father and mother must both be citizens of the United States at the time of birth, and the birth must be on U.S. soil. No U.S. Citizen Father, the argument is therefore moot. But let me address that anyway.
On May 25, 1934, Congress did NOT amend the Constitution of the United States by 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States, but they did pass a lesser law that has been misapplied. That Act of May 24, 1934 cannot be used so as to deny the Constitutional effectiveness of paternal citizenship regarding the Natural Born Citizen clause, because all laws must conform to the Constitution of the United States, or they are without legality.
Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.
I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.
Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?
Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband. So we are not suggesting that.
Justice Ginsburg refers us back to the Act of May 24, 1934.
In other words, beginning on May 25, 1934, both fathers and mothers were able to pass on citizenship without prejudice. However, the condition of "Natural Born Citizenship", of being born with a citizen father of the same country you were born in, remained unaffected. Only now, it was absolutely essential that BOTH father and mother be citizens of the same country you were born in, that is in the jurisdiction of the United States, in order to be a United States Natural Born Citizen.
...Whatever may have been the reason for the 1874 reenactment of the Act of 1802 as R.S. § 2172, we find nothing in that action which suggests a purpose to reverse the structure of inherited citizenship that Congress created in 1855 and recognized and reaffirmed until 1934. On this basis and in the light of our precedents, we hold that, at the time of petitioner's birth in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship status for foreign-born children of American parents. That statute cannot avail this petitioner, who is the foreign-born child of an alien father.
Again, when one views what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, regardless of the Act of May 24, 1934, one CANNOT exclude the father from the equation, or the fact of one sole national allegiance at birth. Rafael Edward Cruz as well as Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), have neither qualification of a United States Citizen Father nor any non-fraudulent proof of a United States soil birth that could ever be accepted in a U.S. Court of Law as evidence.
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. "
"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."
A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN at the time the Constitution was written and being ratified is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off. ( See also John Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter 6:59, cited further on, below).
What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
At Birth Ted Cruz is Canadian first, a Cuban national through is father secondly, and in a distant third, by operation of law (INA 1952) a U.S. citizen whose internationally recognized natural born citizenship rests in Cuba through his father, NOT the United States. At birth, Marco Rubio's nationality follows that of his father, Cuba, and is a dual citizen with the United States, a duality of citizenship PROHIBITED to Natural Born Citizens under the Constitution because his parents were NOT Citizens of the United States at the time he was born in Miami, Florida, USA.
Since Obama is NOT President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, we have no President, but some kind of alien usurper and oligarchy (through him) in place, Cruz would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as well, and moreso, could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!
Those who follow Ted Cruz like he were some new cult messiah NOT to be questioned or challenged on ANY level, should NOT not pretend that by backing Ted Cruz they somehow do not violate the Constitution and aid its enemies to Overthrow the Constitution of the United States by backing Ted Cruz. They are committing a form of TREASON, whether it is actively or passively consciously recognized by them, I personally think most of them they damn well know it. As with any legal challenge of Obama, they should ask the legal questions that should be addressed in a U.S. Supreme Court addressing the Natural Born Citizen issue.
4. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 – 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?
5. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5 “natural born citizen” clause or not?
"Ted" Rafael Cruz Jr. was born in CANADA, and has a father who was a Cuban National at the time of his birth there...and was reared as a Canadian birth citizen at least 3 years in Canada, and REFUSED to renounce his Canadian citizenship before 18 and before age 21.
he naturalized himself as a Canadian Citizen.
under the Laws of Canada in 1971.
Further, did the mother of Rafael Cruz, Jr.
“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States...to become President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties."
It is because they did away with exclusion."
...then since the Dems have their own illegal and usurper in open defiance of the U.S. Constitution in office under color of the "race card" as their "authority", the Republicans might as well have their own Council on Foreign Relations (anti-U.S. Sovereignty secret society billing themselves as masters in the New World Order where Ted's own wife Heidi advocates the US - Canada - Mexico as merging into Region 1 of a One World Government)?
That the United States should merge with Canada and Mexico has been pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations at the United Nations itself since 1991 under the Soviet Communist 100 year economic subversive agenda called "The Program" in which environmentalism would be the back door to push Communitarianism and Marxist-Leninism through the back door and stealth if the direct means of propaganda did not convince the nations that they should all be useful idiot slaves under totalitarian Communist Socialist controls, a theme I personally strongly suspect was re-adopted by Howard Dean and the Democratic Party in 2005 after John Kerry lost to George Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180 "... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
The Law is equal for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or what have you.
so as NOT to allow all his voidable acts to stand.
history, if even that much.

References: v. 
 § 2172
 § 1993
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.