Cruz Pushes Agenda 21 Wildlands Project!

The Marshall Report

agenda UN_SimulationMap21

I’m just going to spell this out for you TED CRUZ IS PUSHING AGENDA 21 NEW WORLD ORDER GOALS – THIS ONE IS CALLED THE WILDLANDS PROJECT!

He is coming in through a partial truth in the back of your heart – that states want their federal confiscated lands returned.  He then is on your side.  Then he says – states have to maintain these and if they can’t THEY CAN SELL THEM.  So the land will be sold to foreign entities for minerals and logging etc.  We the people lose our resources and our land.  This is all part of the Wildlands Project to aggregate the land into NWO globalists hands and steal it from the people. Read article Here: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/ted-cruz-wants-allow-selling-national-parks-strip-government-federal-lands/

Ted Cruz is a puppet for the New World Order Agenda 21! But what does he care – he’s Cuban and Canadian!!

Now read about the Agenda 21 – Wildlands Project!  http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/The%20Wildlands%20Project%20Unleashes%20Its%20War%20On%20Mandkind.pdf

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm

http://propertyrightsresearch.org/wildlands_project.htm

Dianne Marshall

Click to access The%20Wildlands%20Project%20Unleashes%20Its%20War%20On%20Mandkind.pdf

80 thoughts on “Cruz Pushes Agenda 21 Wildlands Project!”

    1. Hal Gagnon says:

      Miss Tucker. Stop trying to defend someone who is trying to sell us out. Cruz was born Candian. Goggle birth place of Ted Cruz. It says in black and white Canada. He should not be even running for President.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply
      5. Rico 1962 says:

        Ted Cruz’s mother is an American, born in Delaware. Federal law states anyone born outside the United States to u.s. citizens is a natural born citizen

        Liked by 2 people

      9. YouKnowItsTrue says:

        Born in Canada to a US citizen who, had not given up US citizenship, and had only been in Canada for 3 years. Canada required a minimum residence of 5 years to become a citizen. Two Judges have already found him to be a legal US citizen. …Fact. Get over it.
        This Wildlands Project is the real story. All State land needs to be protected by its residents, not by Cruz, or the State Governments.

        Like

      10. Hal, Teddy admits his parents were Canadian citizens at his birth but mysteriously somehow claims his mother was still an American which is absurd as Canad did NOT allow dual citizenship. Since both his parents were Canadian citizens, and since both conferred their citizenship to little Teddy, he is a Canadian citizen.

        In an effort to hide the truth, Teddy fabricated a lie claiming he “surrendered” his dual citizenship therefore proving he is a NBC. This is nothing but a bold faced lie as his father was NEVER a US citizen which automatically precludes him from being a NBC as per Article II since that article requires BOTH parents be US citizens for a child to be a NBC as distinguished by our Founders and Emerich Vattel as being distinct and different from a plain citizen or a native citizen. Logic demands that law be consistent so there would be no consistency if three types of citizens are designated all of which means the same thing.

        Here is proof from a REAL constitutional scholar, not a fraud like Teddy: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/natural-born-citizen-status-is-inherited-its-not-bestowed-by-the-constitution-or-acts-of-congress/comment-page-1/#comment-70095

        Like

      11. wlennon says:

        First of all, regarding Natural Born Citizen, there is not one Constitutional Scholar who can answer the question without making assumptions. One such scholar, Dr. Jonathan Turley says it’s never been determined, while making the case than Cruz has standing as did George Romney (born in Mexico), John McCain (Panama), Barry Goldwater (Arizona Territory before it became a state), and it goes back to the 1800’s.

        I have read every link you all have provided, including the video (listen all the way trough) and all the links in the post below my last comment: http://patriots.link/the-cruz-page that contradict what you all want to hear regarding Cruz. Especially wrong it the KrisAnn Hall Video. Nothing posted here does not have any substantial proof Cruz is part of the Wildlands Project, or Agenda 21. It’s all speculation. There is not one shred of evidence which ties Ted Cruz to any of these claims, I am speaking about rock solid proof, not conspiracy theories, or what you wish to believe. Show me documents where Cruz has signed on to the Agenda 21 program, in fact he is the only one who has proved the BLM is not an actual US Led federal project. Those protected lands in the West, the government of Obama has already sold mineral rights to foreign interests, including China.

        Cruz ran his campaign in Iowa against corn subsidies and prevailed. You all should look at the bills Cruz has created in the Senate, they are outstanding and pro-American. As before, show me unmitigated truth, or I will continue to support him and leave all of you alone. And just for the record, the Supreme Court has made it clear, it will not hear a case on Natural Born citizens running for President. I don’t think most of you completely understand the 14th Amendment, not all of the document is available, but look at the Congressional Record – Proceedings and Debates of the 90th Congress, Volume 113 – Part 12. If you’ve spent the years studying and researching government documents as I have, you may want to know about your Birth Certificate number and what’s it’s being used for…We do not practice Common Law in this country, it’s based on Admiralty Law. Ask yourself if you are a person or a citizen and what those two actually mean, it’s going to take a lot of work. Begin with the U.S.A. filed bankruptcy in 1871, and who we sold out to, we were broke due to the Civil War. You can do the rest of the research as I did, not just going to hand it to you.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. you could say Cruz is a man without a country since he has not filed all his paperwork yet–He renounce his citizenship to Canada in May 2015 —and because he held duel citizenship in 2012 he was by our Constitution —Article # 1 —Section 2 and Article # 1 section # 3 —-unable to run or hold a government office for nine yrs.—–Only one of his parents was a US citizens ( mother ) and at the time of his birth she should have filed for his US Citizenship at the US Consulate in Canada ( o filing can be found ) so when he renounced Canada he should have filed a form (FS240 ) to instate him as a full US Citizen but –none can be found —did he?? once that is done he has to wait nine yrs. before running / holding a gov. office ??? since he did not complete his paperwork he is by the constitution a inhabitant citizen — he does not have to file for naturlizetion but for declaration of citizenship –((FS240 ))-no documents have been found— so he is running illegally for office, there are to many unanswered questions when he can solve this mystery by bring forward and provide our country with the proof of citizenship— he said he is but is he ??—-easy——do it—–we dont want another OB with a fake birth right— OB birth certificate can be found for those who want it for history and this one was held in hiding by someone paying $2mil and there is a video as well and inspected by 2 scienetist as the real deal — Google :—:: Obama’s Kenya Birth Certificate @ The Power Hour—great history reading——print it you may never find it again——-

      Like

      Reply
      2. Michelle Forus says:

        How would 9 years make him eligible when BOTH his parents and he were not Citizens at the time of his birth? His mother gave up her American Citizenship and not until 1977 did Canada allow for dual citizenship? His mother and father were both Canadians and he was born in Canada, he is 100% Canadian. Mom was a Traitor

        Like

      3. wlennon says:

        Michelle Forus, his mother never gave up her citizenship, stop giving false testimony (that’s more civil that accusing you of an outright lie). Cruz is a natural born citizen no matter what you hope to be true. If you are trusting Dianne Marshall, well, that is you own fault…

        Liked by 1 person

      4. wlennon says:

        Ted Cruz mother never became a Canadian Citizen, born in Wilmington, Delaware, she retained her American citizenship.

        SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

        http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/documents_us/naturalization%20act%20of%201795.htm

        Like

    3. Valerie C. Hertz-Kusz says:

      Mme. Rafael is a Cuban & a Canadian, who just relinquished his Canadian Citizenship in the fall of “2014”…..Rafael, came to America @ the age of 4 years old with his mother.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    5. Michelle Forus says:

      No he is not an American nor is he a natural born. If he was a natural born he would have a American birth certificate but he does not, its Canadian! It matters not that his mother is an American born because the 2nd requirement is that BOTH your parents be Citizens at the time of the POTUS birth. His mother while born here gave up her status to become a Canadian, she also gave up her birth right, this is the kind of family you defend? He strikes out on both qualifications!! Why do some of you people want an Un-American as POTUS have you not learned anything at all after Obama who also wasn’t qualified even if he was born in Hawaii because only one parent was American!! Now here is the reality of his loyalty and yours to this country. IF the law is broken to make him POTUS here’s what happens, it will legitimize Obama and the OPEN cases fighting very hard for years he is not a legitimate sitting POTUS will be thrown OUT! It will then serve to do what the Globalist want done, is open up the POTUS seat to anyone in the world! The leader of Iran or N.Korea can claim his childs mother is American born, even though he is born in Iran or ???..and put his son in place!! THINK AHEAD!! The elite do things in baby steps, CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS NEEDED or kiss this nation good bye forever!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Imperator says:

        No, Mrs. Cruz did not “give up her American citizenship.” She was an American citizen when Ted was born, and that makes Ted a natural born citizen.

        “Writing in the Harvard Law Review, two former top Supreme Court litigators, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, said: “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.” The fact that Ted Cruz’s mother was a citizen, by this standard, means that despite his birth in Canada, he is eligible.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/15/that-vexing-natural-born-citizen-requirement-what-were-the-founding-fathers-afraid-of/

        Like

      2. wlennon says:

        Ted Cruz mother never became a Canadian Citizen, born in Wilmington, Delaware, she retained her American citizenship.

        SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

        http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/documents_us/naturalization%20act%20of%201795.htm

        Like

    6. Only citizens that are “Natural Born” in the United State can run for office of President. The Constitution Was very clear of that may wanna look. He is Canadian By birth. If you would like more information Let me know. I know my history quite well specially the Constitution!!!

      Like

      Reply
    7. don says:

      He was born in Canada and his dad was cuban. Why they say he is a natural born citizen his mom was a US citizen when he was born. In Canada. He just give up his canadian status in 2014.

      Like

      Reply

    9. To all of you who claim that the Constitution defines Natural Born Citizen..IT DOES NOT. The Constitution only mentions it without definition. The Lower Court Justices cannot interpret or define it, nor can Constitutional Scholars. ONLY CONGRESS CAN!!! CONGRESS has not and seemingly will not take it up to decide. So, stop the moot arguments about Cruz.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. It does explain it very well. Only liars will protest it to try and push lies as truth. It is definable and always has been. Cruz is a liar and his father is the author of it.

        Like

    10. How about Ted unsealing his and/or his mother’s records. After all, why are they sealed? Remember those people named Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton. They sealed their records, too. Now you can say the records are private. Not when you are running for President. Secrecy does not equal transparency. The records are not a matter of national security, are they? So why not unseal them?

      Like

      Reply
  2. patrioticeagle says:

    A puppet is the one who posted this Conspiracy.

    Ted Cruz has defended in court land owner rights against the federal government.

    And over 3 million veterans were defended in Court for free by Ted Cruz.

    If you believe this article then welcome to the hoodwink against Ted Cruz.

    Ted Cruz is the most electable Constitutional Conservative of the 21st century.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    2. Agreed and frankly, known among law scholars as obvious. Appears at some point, someone in Texas, will push the issue and win, unless Cruz attempts to set aside the Constitution at which point he will remain a citizen, but not natural born. Given the unquestioned impossibility of his ever being elected to the White House, it’s not an issue, but might become one when, no doubt, thousands of far more intelligent people in his senate district might run against this,’PAC product’.

      Like

      Reply
  3. cadetserveroriginator says:

    This is what the stacks of Executive Orders that have been hurriedly signed on the way out of office by nearly every President of either party for the last couple decades. PAYOFFS for getting elected by the (Electroral College “Delegates”) or stuffed ballot boxes! It is to pay off the Trillions of Dollars of Federal Debt on the Taxpayers’ backs. They are creating “Roadless” areas (but not driveable by John or Jane Doe)…the Govt Elites can go back in our We The People PUBLIC LAND…like Natl Forests, Pristine primitive areas, Developed Parks & Wild lands that belong to the TRUE Citizens of the USA.

    IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE FOREIGNERS, THE SO-CALLED UNITED “NATIONS”, The Feds or G-men, THE ILLEGALS NOR THE REFUGEES! It certainly does not belong to Presidents or politicians who think they are kings or emperors! WAKE UP! This is the hidden agenda behind the quasi…bleeding heart demand to “protect” our U.S. land for global warming, climate change…sustainable governance…it is about money laundering instead of debating and deciding if laws are worthy of being passed.

    The very “guardians” are the foxes watching the henhouse & selling off mineral, water, oil & gas rights to the highest bidder or paying off National Debt! The UN has had documents on the Internet before the massive firewalls, how to divide up the USA…by deconstructing the State Constitutions & then our main Bill of Rights, Amendments & Constitution…stealing & controlling land…to make border checkpoints with natural pass roads thru mountains & wildlands.

    They have their paramilitary & FEMA type bases back there…meanwhile acting like they are the Global EPA…it is a Land & Power grab to overthrow our Free Society, Constitution & Way of Life in America & Beyond. SOUND THE ALARM…GRABBING FED,STATE, LOCAL LAND…your farms, our ranches, pushing us to be worker bees in cities, or suburb cloned stepford drones, breaking down our doors with gun control…this is how TYRANNY DOES IT.

    WATCH HOW MANY EXEC ORDERS OBAMA SIGNS OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS…HE THINKS HE IS A KING! Why do you think the UN is in New York? The Clintons set up camp there to be the emperors…Chicago has ahold of the reins with Obo & the Muslim Brotherhood. ..invasion 3 stages of Stealth Jihad. But they are nearly the same beast.

    THESE MEN/WOMEN CAMPED OUT IN OREGON ARE PROTESTING THE TAKING OF OUR LANDS, LIVELIHOODS, FREEDOMS OF RELIGION & SPEECH. Were those fires in Oregon, arson? Or did it even happen…or were the Ranches practicing fire maintenance to burn fields to prevent wildfires?http://www.vetvoicefoundation.org/press/veterans-call-out-senators-who-voted-to-sell-off-our-federal-lands

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  4. More’s the shame if Mr Cruz who has sealed his records in Canada so we can not verify his claims of legitimacy as a US citizen (WHY IS THIS MAN SEALING HIS LEGAL RECORDS??). IF he is an American US citizen and is selling out this country to globalist schemes like the land grab detailed in this article More Is The Shame. But Cruz is a Globalist with no loyalty to the US whatever his alleged citizenship. Tweeting back at Trump for answering a question about Cruz’s citizenship is NOT an adequate answer = “Trump jumps the shark”. Fail Cruz! We are sick of phony leaders lying to us. Prove otherwise Cruz.

    Are you sick of these faceless bureaucrats running this country into a third world hell hole? Obama wasn’t enough? Look before you vote and buy another disloyal “North American” loyal to The Globe only.

    “The destruction of trust may in retrospect be the single most destructive act committed by elitist politics in the Western democracies, all the more because its object is intangible and therefore its damage more lasting….It is feelings that count; real betrayal takes place when you stop caring. The elites may stopped caring a long time ago, what they never expected was that one day the masses would return the compliment.” (Richard Fernandez)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You may want to see what Cruz is doing now. His advisors in 2016 are all CFR, CIA, and Establishment Elite, his donors are TTP supporters. Theil one of his biggest donors is a member of the Bilderberg group and has deep ties and projects to help the globalist new world order. He is working on “Blueseed” projects to have floating nation cities for the world utopia. You need to update what your guy is doing now.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. I wonder if Beck is aware of this? Glenn Beck is very anti-Agenda 21 and is promoting Cruz. We used to watch Beck’s TV show on Fox. That was a great show in which he exposed a lot of things we had never heard of before, Agenda 21 being one of them. But something happened to Beck when he left Fox (dunno if his show was cancelled or if he quit) and moved to Texas. It’s like he slipped off the rails. I don’t listen to him but I do know he’s still promoting Cruz.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. Kitty Myers,
    I’m with you. While I do appreciate Mr. Beck getting my attention, and providing to me information that I find useful to this day, I think he is “off the res”. (and maybe his meds) Side note : I use http://www.ixquick.com rather than submit to the whole “google” thing.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Sorry that article was not informed of what the new world order is. It is the United Nations goals for the 21st century sustainable development for a new world order. All the conspiracy theories are thrown out when you see that it is alive and well and all who are partnering in any of it (sustainable development) are deep in it. Read directly from the United Nations website. You will be amazed. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400

      Like

      Reply
      1. wlennon says:

        Dianne, I have read it, once it became publically available, including a release leaked from the U.N long before made public. I have researched Agenda 21, in fact in many areas of California it is being practiced as we speak, video posted on June 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKRHMRTpDF8 I am not arguing with you about Agenda 21, and the upcoming Agenda 2030. As for this election is concerned, I have good reason to believe it will happen, Obama may not leave office. We have over 250,000 U.N. peace keepers living as citizens in our country today. Our government has been moving massive amounts of military hardware to major cities, you can see much of this on YouTube. But, you would be surprised on what you can find on Google Earth and mini drone flyovers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ksk03aO6OI

        Like

  15. Brenda says:

    Ted Cruz is NOT eligible to become president that is just your belief, as you state you do NOT have the authority to say he is eligible, Read the constitution AGAIN!

    Like

    Reply
  16. Werner says:

    How stupid is this conversation. Obama already set the precedence for not being an American citizen and running our country (into the ground ) anyway. So what difference does it make where Cruz was born who’s going to stop it from happening? No one! Birth country no longer an issue with the powers that control.

    Like

    Reply

  18. Most of the comments here are from people who speak from ignorance of the law and of the Constitution. When the Supreme Court still obeyed the Constitution (which they completely stopped doing in June 1935), the Supreme Court announced that while everyone born in the United States might be labelled a “citizen at birth” by an act of Congress (federal law), and while Congress could establish conditions for recognizing persons born outside the country to American citizen parents, Congress could not define “natural born citizen” as that term is used in the Constitution. That term is fixed with the meaning it had when the Constitution was adopted – born within the United States to parents who were both United States citizens, or to US citizen parents who were outside the country at time of birth as representatives of the United States or as members of a United States military force in that country. The term was used specifically to preclude any person born with any citizenship other than American (United States) from ever being elected or serving. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, so he was born with Canadian citizenship. He was born to an American mother, so he had derivative American citizenship. He was born to a Cuban father, so he had derivative Cuban citizenship.He is an American citizen, has been from birth, but he is not a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 (Natural Born Citizen Clause.)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  19. Mary says:

    Defining Natural-Born Citizen
    by P.A. MADISON on November 18th, 2008

    “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason

    What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.

    What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

    Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

    Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined,” and those “which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”

    Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was simply an exercise of a States “numerous and indefinite” powers. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. James Madison said citizenship rules “have obtained in some of the States,” and “if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us” (question of Rep. William Smith being a citizen or not).

    Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

    Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance to the King, however natural citizenship via birth could require being born to a British subject depending on the era in question. After independence this perpetual allegiance to the crown was abandoned for the principle of expatriation.

    It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to.

    Furthermore, unlike the British practice, States required everyone including aliens to take an oath of allegiance to the State as a condition of residency. Children born to these residents were considered born into the allegiance of the State. In addition to this, States also had specific laws that banned citizenship to alien born who were not resident aliens who had declared their allegiance. New York for example, responded through enactment of a law to the ruling in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) that had used common law rules of citizenship by birth to specifically exclude children born to “transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.”

    In other words, unlike under the common law, birth by itself did not create allegiance to anyone due merely to locality.

    Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

    It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.

    House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “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.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.

    Under the old English common law, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all to the King that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

    Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

    Fourteenth Amendment

    Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to physical location alone.

    This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one claim of allegiance.

    The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

    This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into proper context: “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.”

    United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”

    Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes arguing the physical presence of being subject to laws silly because being subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an aliens allegiance to their native country.

    Natural-Born Citizen Defined

    One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.

    Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

    The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:

    Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

    Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one.

    This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

    That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

    Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

    Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

    And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.

    Conclusion

    Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.

    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*

    When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

    Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

    * Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside within some state per state law.

    UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.

    Related: What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means

    Related: Nothing Unusual about States Denying Citizenship to Alien Born Children

    Related: Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

    Feel free to share.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Pat says:

    People stop! Ted Cruz is a christian. Ted Cruz loves America. TED Cruz doesn’t flip flop on issues. What he says he means. He is against big government. He is against Agenda 21. He is our biggest hope to save America. While Trump was donating to the Clinton foundation to get preferential treatment and taking bailouts from the federal government Ted Cruz was fighting to save our country. Trump said about the campaign donations and the bailouts that’s what you do when your in business to get what you need. That means as President he will sell out

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Mary says:

      ReallyGeorge, those are the same things said about Obama when he first put his hat in the race. Do you personally know Ted Cruz? You can never really know some one, remember Satan was an angel before he was cast out!

      Like

      Reply
  22. Richard says:

    For those who don’t understand why we need and what is a natural born citizen.
    This is why we have a villain in the white house. Obama, Cruz and Rubio are not natural born citizens. Period! This is from a constitutional lawyer!

    Like

    Reply
  23. Georga22 says:

    Agenda 21 from Wikipedia says in part:
    “During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels.[18] The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.”[19][20] Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21.[4][13][21][22][23][24] Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21.[5] Many other states, including Arizona, are drafting, and close to passing legislation to ban Agenda 21.[25]

    Activists, some of whom have been associated with the Tea Party movement by The New York Times and The Huffington Post, have said that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights.[4][13] Columnists in The Atlantic have linked opposition to Agenda 21 to the property rights movement in the United States.[13][26] In 2012 Glenn Beck co-wrote a dystopian novel titled Agenda 21 based in part on concepts discussed in the UN plan.[27][28][29]”

    Like

    Reply

  24. I came here investigating the claim that Ted Cruz supports Agenda 21. Anyone who thinks this article offers even a shred of evidence for that claim either didn’t complete reading it or can’t think straight. Dianne Marshall’s claims are bogus and her analysis is daft. I’ll keep looking, though.

    Like

    Reply

    1. If Cruz supports any part of the worlds sustainable development goals then he is in support of Agenda 21. The real name is United Nations sustainable development for the 21st century new world order. The wildlands project is part of that. Here is an interesting link that will explain details http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/ It sounds like you are already familiar with the project. Allowing states to wheel and deal with land rights involving private sector corporations which will include foreign investors will result in more problems and more refusal of access to state lands. Where it sounds good, corruption is also in our states, let only these private sector layers that include foreign corps. to gain land lease rights. They are already investing in Americas corporations now. Land that should go to the people will be a free for all and not the expected outcome we the people are being told it will once states get their lands back which oddly is theirs to begin with. BLM is merely supposed to maintain the lands. Not do all the things they are presently doing with them now. It is the BLM that needs torn down and restructured to do what it was meant to do. Everything is corrupt at this time. All moving toward a north American union and achieving the sus. dev. goals for a NWO.

      Like

      Reply

      1. By pushing for this legislation…Cruz is giving the corporations everything they need to buy land rights of natural resources that belong to the people and interfere with ranchers who have land grazing permits, sportsman, hunters and fisherman. And all who visit state parks. It is a deadly pass to allow total underhanded deals although on the surface it looks great. It is another Trojan horse.

        Like

    2. wlennon says:

      In 1871, the United States became a Corporation and added a second Constitution, it left out two words, instead of the United States of America, the one in D.C. reads, “The United States” (no America), and changed “Of The People’ to “For The People”. Here is what two judges had to say about our Land. http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/superior-court-judges-on-blm-occupation-in-oregon-the-british-crown-has-kidnapped-and-press-ganged-american-land-assets-in-criminal-conspiracy-contempt-of-our-constitution/

      Like

      Reply
  32. William Kruse says:

    If you will all read “ALL of the documentation from our founders” you will find that the Father has to have been born an American and Ted’s was not

    Like

    Reply
  34. Brian says:

    Ted had a dual citizenship, and one of them was a U.S. Citizenship, so that argument is MOOT! The more troubling thing is how he and his wife and very much involved in the agenda to create an American Union where there are no borders. Anyone from S. American can travel freely to Canada without a visa, or any papers to proceed through this country. WE LOSE OUR BORDERS, and our sovereignty, NOT to mention our national identity thanks to multi culturalism and those who are pushing it like Ted and his wife.

    Ted also opposes cracking down on businesses that hire and employ illegal aliens, which are a part of immigration laws he claims he would enforce. I DON’T BELIEVE HIM! And anyone who trusts him is being foolish and either mis informed or just ignorant.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment