Has Trump Dropped Obama Citizenship Probe To Accuse Cruz?

Photo credit: Albert H. Teich / Shutterstock.com

The GOP infighting has apparently already begun as one likely presidential candidate took aim at the first official hopeful on the same day he announced his candidacy. Donald Trump, who made headlines for his skepticism of Barack Obama’s purported birth certificate, stated similar concerns over Ted Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president.

Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, has faced allegations that he does not meet the constitutional requirements to become the nation’s commander in chief. He has repeatedly claimed he is eligible, however; and, as Western Journalism reported this week, even left-leaning media outlets acknowledge he meets the necessary citizenship threshold.

For Trump, though, the evidence is not entirely convincing.

“It’s a hurdle,” he said of the Texas senator’s birth; “somebody could certainly look at it.”

Trump’s early attack on the Tea Party favorite was tempered by his admission that Cruz is a talented politician.

“It’s going to be interesting to see how Ted does,” he acknowledged. “I know him very well; he’s a smart guy and could do pretty well. It’s not going to [be] easy for anybody. It’s going to be a competitive field.”

Any praise he might have for Cruz, however, is offset by his ostensible constitutional concerns.

“He was born in Canada,” Trump said. “If you know and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country; so I just don’t know how the courts would rule on it.”

As for Trump’s decision regarding his own presidential candidacy, he said he will make an announcement “sometime by June.”

Do you support Ted Cruz? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Presidential Eligibility Requirement Case

Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson (Flickr)

On behalf of former presidential candidates John Dummett and Ed Noonan, the U.S. Justice Foundation recently submitted a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what safeguards are constitutionally mandated in ensuring a candidate is qualified to run. The action is in response to two previous court rulings suggesting California’s secretary of state does not have a responsibility to verify a presidential candidate’s status as a natural born citizen.

The USJF petition cites the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 2, which says state legislatures are tasked with determining eligibility. Given the nation’s current electoral process, the court document holds these lawmakers must provide voters with a choice between candidates who meet constitutional requirements for the position they seek.

The petition chronicles the court history of the issue, including appeals court decisions the petitioners conclude were based on faulty logic. The appeal provides three reasons that, through the role of California’s chief elections officer, the secretary of state should be tasked with verifying a presidential candidate’s eligibility.

First, USJF argues that no sufficient pathway to challenging a candidate’s qualification exists on the federal level. The petition describes the arduous process needed to complete such a challenge through the U.S. Congress, concluding that since the remedy is “so limited in its scope, the question of whether a candidate for President is eligible for the office cannot be effectively address, much less resolved, under current constitutional or statutory law.”

That argument leads to the second point, namely that both the Electoral College and U.S. Congress lack any authority to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility.

Finally, the petitioners contend that current statutes compelling the California secretary of state to place major political parties’ nominees on the state’s ballot is in direct conflict with the duty to comply with existing election laws.

In its conclusion, the petition asserts that the appellants represented “have demonstrated that questions of eligibility are not properly before any entity other than the court or the chief elections officer of the State of California” and “that the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to verify a candidates [sic] eligibility.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: Marine Calls For Obama’s Resignation On The Steps Of The White House

White House Marine

Sergeant Manny E. Vega, after the midterm election Tuesday night, takes the news to President Obama on the steps of the White House. Armed with a megaphone, Vega exercises his First Amendment right and calls out Obama–and does so for about an hour, according to Mad World News.

Vega, a Marine and now a member of the Patriot Militia, has spent nine years in the Marine Corps and has been deployed to Iraq three different times.

Sgt. Vega says Obama should just leave his office and pursue golfing instead of his presidency and repeatedly asks for his resignation. He even goes into a speech about Obama’s birth certificate, which he doesn’t believe to be authentic.

He suggests Obama is an “usurper” and suggests he just leave his job.

“You know Mr. President, the American people have had about enough of you. They have had about enough of all you do against this country and against the Constitution,” Vega said in the megaphone.

“These politicians are our public servants and they will maintain their positions only by serving the American people,” Vega told Mad World News.

Strangely, no Secret Service members came to stop Vega during his demonstration at one o’clock in the morning.

Vega closes out the video by singing a portion of America the Beautiful to the White House walls and the President inside, who is perhaps unaware of the patriot’s demonstration.

H/T Mad World News

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

“Rudy v. Lee” Supreme Court Case Could Put Spotlight On Obama’s Constitutional Eligibility

obama bummed

Last week, our firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting a patent attorney’s claim that a law mandating an increase in patent application fees was invalid because it was signed into law by President Obama, who does not meet the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born citizen.” The lower courts in the case ruled that the question of President Obama’s citizenship is a “political question” and thus an issue for Congress, not the courts,­ to decide.

Until now, the question of President Obama’s qualifications as a “natural born citizen” has been dodged by the judiciary because those challenging his eligibility had not suffered any personal injury compensable by a court–and thus lacked “legal” standing. There is no such barrier in this case because the patent attorney suffered an out-of-pocket loss of $90.00 because of the new law signed by President Obama.

Also, until now, no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the President. Rather, previous cases have sought the removal of President Obama from the presidential ballot or from office altogether. In this case, however, the complaining patent attorney is not seeking President Obama’s removal from office, but simply a refund of his $90.00 and a declaration that, unless he is a “natural born citizen,” President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to sign a bill into law. Yet, the courts are attempting to avoid declaring what the law is based on the judge-made expedient of labeling the issue a “political question.”

In addition to possessing the standing that prior challengers lacked, Mr. Rudy’s case comes at an opportune time ­ just two months after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning that an Order of the NLRB was invalid because three members of the board were constitutionally ineligible to serve.

Our amicus brief in Rudy argued that if the U.S. Supreme Court can decide whether members of the NLRB meet the constitutional requirements of their office, it can also decide whether the President of the United States meets the constitutional requirements of his office.

Further, as our brief demonstrated, the requirement that a President be a “natural born citizen” is a fixed legal principle prescribed by the Constitution, with the purpose to insulate the office from foreign influences that would compromise the President’s sworn oath to “defend, preserve, and protect” the Constitution of the United States.

Many object to any challenge to the eligibility of a president, or presidential aspirant; but if the law is to apply equally to every person, Presidents cannot be deemed to be above the law based on vague tests such as whether the case presents “political question.” Indeed, demonstrating that the term “natural born citizen” is a constitutional requirement that has continuing political significance that needs resolution are questions not just about President Obama, but also about Republicans Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and others.

Our brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law
370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4, Vienna, Virginia 22180-5615
Phone: (703) 356-5070; Fax: (703) 356-5085
114 Creekside Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22602-2429
Phone: (540) 450-8777; Fax: (540) 450-8771

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What This Group Is Doing Could Be A Game Changer For The Impeachment Of Obama


A group of activists and bloggers are calling for protests across the nation for the impeachment and conviction of Barack Obama.  The event is declared “National Impeach Obama Week” and starts on August 23rd.  The website address is:


The protests will include events on freeway overpasses and street protests as well as protests at the offices/town-halls of congressmen and in front of Government buildings.  The organizers believe that Obama should be removed from office for many reasons, only a few of which are provided here.

● Government by dictatorial fiat with lawless executive orders targeting Amnesty for illegal aliens, Obamacare, gun regulation, etc.

● Encouraging massive numbers of illegal aliens to enter the US–because he has stopped enforcing the immigration laws

● Waging illegal wars without the constitutionally-required approval from Congress

● The assassination of three American citizens without due process via drone bombings

● Blatant lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack, Obamacare, etc.

● Funding Al Qaeda and other Jihadist terrorists in Syria and elsewhere

● Gun smuggling to Mexican drug cartels

● Using the Internal Revenue Service as a political weapon against his political enemies

● Frequent bizarre and erratic behavior, which is a disturbing sign of psychological pathology

● Providing shoddily forged identification documents as proof that he is eligible for office

● Constitutional ineligibility for the office that he holds, since he is clearly not a Natural Born Citizen as the Constitution requires

● Overall subversive, anti-American background, which has been confirmed by his actions in office

National Impeach Obama Week is organized by unpaid volunteers.  Contributions are not requested.  It is a truly leaderless, grassroots protest.  Because they are volunteers, the participants are unfettered by the repressive regulations of the IRS.

All groups, individual organizers, and American citizens are invited to join in this national protest.  Another protest is being planned for just before the mid-term elections.

The current endorsers are:

Give Us Liberty

Impeach Obama Now Coalition

Impeach Obama Rallies of Jacksonville, Florida

One Nation Under Fraud

Stand for Liberty

Tea Party Patriots of Brookhaven

Ventura County Tea Party


Roger Ogden is an activist in San Diego, California, who has been organizing anti-Obama protests since the Tax Day protests of 2009.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom