Friday, March 25, 2016

Investigator: Ted Cruz Should Be 
Truthful With the American People
by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 25, 2016) — In recent weeks, Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo has appeared on Carl Gallups’s “Freedom Friday” radio show speaking about the questionable presidential eligibility of Sen. Ted Cruz, who has been running in second place to Donald Trump in the Republican primaries leading up to the nomination this summer.

In regard to presidential eligibility, Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The requirement was changed from simply “a Citizen” at the “hint” of Founding Father John Jay, who wrote to Continental Congress presiding officer George Washington in July 1787:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Many Americans who have studied the issue since Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility was questioned in 2007 have concluded that the “natural born Citizen” clause is one of “national security.”

Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 as evidenced by his Canadian birth certificate provided to The Dallas Morning News in August 2013. The resulting article, titled “Dual Citizenship May Pose Problem if Ted Cruz Seeks Presidency,” reported that Cruz was “at birth” born both a citizen of the U.S. and Canada.

Cruz’s father is from Cuba and reportedly became a Canadian citizen in 1973 while operating a seismic data-processing business during the oil-industry boom of the era.  Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh Wilson Cruz, was born in Delaware in 1934 and, according to her son, never became a Canadian citizen.

Wilson Cruz also lived in the United Kingdom while married to her first husband, Texan Alan Wilson, who told the Morning News in January that she did not assume British citizenship while there.

The U.S. State Department reports that according to current U.S. law, a child born to one U.S.-citizen parent “may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met.”  In the instance of “Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock,” the State Department reports that “A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.”

“INA” refers to the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed by Congress in 1952.

Eleanor Darragh Wilson Cruz reportedly attended and graduated from Rice University, which may have allowed for her to transfer U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad by meeting the U.S. residency requirement.

A differentiation between the terms “U.S. citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is often not made by the media.

An individual born abroad to two “natural born” married parents in 1957 recently contacted The Post & Email to share the birth registration he or she was issued by the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service division.  The person reported that in order to join the U.S. military in 1974, he or she was required to apply for and provide a “Naturalization Certificate” and FS-240, the birth registration document.  “I am naturalized, and that is all Ted Cruz is,” the individual told us.

When The Dallas Morning News first reported that Cruz was born a dual citizen, Cruz’s U.S. Senate office denied the claim.  “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.  At the time, The News speculated that Cruz’s dual citizenship “may pose [a] problem if Ted Cruz seeks [the] presidency.”

Almost immediately following The News’s revelations, however, Cruz pledged to renounce his Canadian citizenship.  “Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American,” Cruz was quoted as having said.

On August 20, 2013, The Washington Post reported that in addition to his automatic Canadian citizenship, “Cruz is also a U.S. citizen by virtue of his mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson who was born in Wilmington, Del. Whether or not this qualifies him for the White House remains uncertain.”

Nine months later, on May 14, 2014, Cruz applied to the Canadian government to renounce his citizenship, a process completed approximately 30 days later.  Other than his birth certificate and renunciation confirmation, he has released no other documentation, and none as to his presumed U.S. citizenship.

During the nine-month period, some wondered why Cruz did not submit his application to renounce his Canadian citizenship immediately.

As to Zullo’s interest in the issue, at the direction of Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Zullo has headed a four-year investigation into the long-form birth certificate posted by the Obama White House on April 27, 2011 purported to be a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate allegedly held by the Hawaii Department of Health.

On March 1, 2012, Zullo and Arpaio held a press conference in which they declared that the investigation showed that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries.”  A second presser on July 17 released more details as to how the conclusions had been reached, punctuated by Arpaio’s urging of Congress to launch its own investigation.

In an interview on Monday, Zullo told The Post & Email that “because of the matter that was brought to Sheriff Arpaio and the investigative work that followed, Zullo found the media’s handling of the Cruz birth narrative to be unnervingly analogous to that of the Obama birth narrative.  “It would be insincere of me not to look into another situation simply because of political party association,” Zullo said, while stressing that he is doing so as a private citizen and lifelong Republican. “The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not investigating Ted Cruz,” he emphasized.

Zullo went on to explain that during his investigative research into Obama’s birth documents, he needed to research the “natural born” issue in-depth, as it would pertain to a possible motive to conceal certain facts and necessitate the creation of a fraudulent document. Zullo pointed to undeniable historical evidence that exists strongly indicating that “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution meant someone who was born either in the United States, a U.S. territory or to a U.S. official serving his country abroad.

Zullo said that he is concerned that Cruz may very well be deliberately misleading the public by omitting salient points relating to the “natural born Citizen” requirement and his own citizenship and eligibility status.  Zullo was very candid in making it clear that he is a Trump supporter in the upcoming presidential election; however, as in the Obama investigation, his activity in the Cruz situation has nothing do with politics.  Zullo’s sole motivation is to get to the truth on both issues.

When asked during campaign speeches about his eligibility, without identifying it, Cruz cites the Naturalization Act of 1790, the only congressional statute which made reference to “natural born citizens:”

…And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:…

Both Ted Cruz and his father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, who has also been a guest on Gallups’s show attempting to settle questions about his son’s eligibility, are “outright disingenuous,”  Zullo said. “Rafael’s intentional failure to disclose to Gallups’s listening audience that the 1790 Act was repealed and replaced five years later, omitting any reference to ‘natural born Citizens,’ destroys any notion that the repealed statute can be relied upon as evidence that the issue has been settled, as Mr. Cruz would like one to believe.  The last time I checked, ‘repealed’ means to revoke or annul a law. It is utterly disingenuous to cite a statute that has been repealed as the foundational legal justification of your claim,” Zullo told The Post & Email.

The Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which stated that 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:

Naturalization Act of 1795:

“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:…”

“The problem for Cruz in his deceptive reliance on a repealed statute is not only disingenuous, but also legally and logically flawed,” Zullo continued.  “History shows statutes about acquiring citizenship at birth have changed many times over the last 200+ years. In some former statutes, a mother could not convey citizenship to a child.  In addition, at some points in our history, a woman marrying a foreign citizen would have caused her to forfeit her own U.S. citizenship by statute.  There is no court in the nation that would allow enforcement of any repealed statute. Once repealed, it is as if it never existed going forward.  Ted Cruz, as a Harvard-educated attorney who has argued successfully before the Supreme Court a number of times certainly knows better; there is no excuse,” Zullo said.

“This evidence flies contrary to the Cruz accession that he qualifies merely because his mother was a U.S. citizen at birth living abroad. While it is perhaps a fact that his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth whose own birthright citizenship could be conveyed to her son, the fact is that Cruz would be a citizen at birth by virtue of a congressional statute, and the Constitution cannot be defined or redefined by any statutory means.  Therefore, his mother’s citizenship certainly does not convey Natural Born Citizenship to him or anyone else under the same circumstance,” Zullo said.

The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 and implemented on March 4, 1789.  The “natural born Citizen” clause has never been changed by the process of amendment set forth in Article V.  However, congressional efforts to remove the clause began in 1975 with Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, becoming more frequent since 2003.  Zullo pointed out that “the very fact that there have been eight attempts to remove the “natural born Citizen” requirement by congressional resolution and not the required Constitutional amendment is a very strong indication that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ is an impediment to those who wish to seek the office of president who otherwise would not satisfy the requirement.”

Zullo stated that “it is painfully obvious that the attempts were made to circumvent the ‘natural born Citizen’ qualifier to hold the Office of the Presidency and open up the Presidency to any citizen, regardless of birthplace and/or parental lineage.”  “It is obvious the members of this modern-day Congress clearly understand the meaning and limiting power of the natural born Citizen clause in the Constitution; otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to omit it if it was of no consequence,” he said.

“Cruz omits things that aren’t convenient to him.  He omits the fact that the 1790 statute was repealed.  He omits certain evidentiary fact, such as that Founding Father James Madison actually said that place of birth is dominant over the parents’ citizenship.  Another example is that the author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, said on the record during the 1866 debate during its drafting that a person ‘born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States’ is a ‘natural-born citizen’ without ‘the shadow of a doubt.’  That was a declaratory statement that met no rebuttal, clearly understood and accepted by Congressional members of the time,” Zullo stated.

“There is also the enlightening essay about Winston Churchill authored by Atty. Mario Apuzzo, an attorney I interviewed early on in the Obama birth certificate investigation,” Zullo continued, referring to an article posted on January 25 of this year which reveals that the famous British statesman‘s mother was a U.S. citizen who wed an Englishman, giving birth to her children in her adopted country.  On November 30, 1874 in Great Britain, Churchill was therefore born into a situation similar to Cruz’s.

In his essay, Apuzzo explained: [...] Continued @ The Post & Email.


- Youtube -