Patriots. IMPORTANT. Difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Please read and share!

PATRIOTS: KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIAN SIKH WITH A TURBAN & ISLAMIC/MUSLIM HEADGEAR:

Please take the time to read and Understand the differences. During active duty in the Corps I have had the honor to fight in Specops alongside these brave loyal men.

I know of and vouch for their integrity.

 

Most Americans mistake Sikhs for Muslims due to their turbans, which often makes Sikhs targets of attacks meant for Muslims.
Sikhs are not MUSLIM and are mortal enemies of Muslims. Islam has been trying to destroy Sikhs for hundreds of years. Read up!

Please learn the differences in Sikh and Muslim headgear below. You might be able to save a Sikh’s life one day or maybe he will save yours. 

 

I urge all those who read this to find a Sikh person with a Turban and let him know that you appreciate him for being a loyal American. He may not sound like you, but 99.9% of them are 100% loyal to America. In 130 years there has never been a Sikhs act of Terror against America.
Sikhs have been a part of the American populace for more than 130 years. Near the end of the 19th century, the state of Punjab of British India was hit hard by British practices of mercantilism. Many Sikhs emigrated to the United States and began arriving to work on farms in California. They traveled via Hong Kong to Angel Island, California, the western counterpart to Ellis Island in New York Harbor.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_the_United_States

If you see a man walking down the street wearing a pointed turban, there is 99.9% chance that he is a Sikh, a follower of a monotheistic religion that started in the 15th century in India. Sikhs proudly wear the turban as part of their religious and cultural heritage. Sikhs are often mistaken for Muslims or Arabs. They are neither. Sikhism is an independent religion and is in no way related to Islam.

SIKH MEN commonly wear a peaked turban that serves partly to cover their long hair, which is never cut out of respect for God’s creation. Devout Sikhs also do not cut their beards, so many Sikh men comb out their facial hair and then twist and tuck it up into their turbans along with the hair from their heads.  

 

Sikhism originated in northern India and Pakistan in the 15th century and is one of the youngest of the world’s monotheistic religions. There are an estimated 18 million Sikhs in the world, with some 2 million spread throughout North America, Western Europe and the former British colonies.

About Sikhism and Islam

Sikhism, founded in fifteenth century Punjab on the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev and ten successive Sikh Gurus (the last one being the sacred text Guru Granth Sahib), is the fifth-largest organized religion in the world. This system of religious philosophy and expression has been traditionally known as the Gurmat (literally the counsel of the gurus) or the Sikh Dharma. Sikhism originated from the word Sikh, which in turn comes from the Sanskrit root śiṣya meaning "disciple" or "learner", or Sikshameaning "instruction".

---- "SIKHS WILL NEVER BOW TO ISLAM !! -

Pictures shows...Sikh women Martyrs of Punjab (1752) -----

ISLAM HAS BEEN AT FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS!!

March 6, 1752 A.D., Muin-ul-Malk, Governor of Lahore (now Pakistan), also known as Mir Mannu; ordered the extermination of Sikhs in his area & had the men-folk beheaded publicly, with the younger unmarried girls sold or distributed among the jihadis. The women and children had a different fate and were taken captives & keep hungry in the Lahore jail. Starving women were forced to operate heavy wheat grindstones and were given the option of conversion to Islam or suffer consequences. They unanimously chose to remain steadfast to their faith in the face of certain death, upon which the Muslim guards gruesomely massacred over 300 infants and children, IMPALING them on spears. Chopping their limbs, bodies of babies were RIPPED open to take out Internal Organs which were then garlanded around their mothers necks. One by one many Sikh women suffered such brutal atrocities but they all chose to remain steadfast to their Sikh faith instead of embracing Islam.

Miraculously though, before the Womens' turn came to be slaughtered, the surviving Sikh women were rescued by the Akalis (Sikh horsemen) sometime after the death of Mir Mannu on November 4, 1753. One can guess, that similar barbarity must have befallen on Sikh babies at other prisons where their mothers could not be rescued to tell their part of tragedy.

Incidents like these run in thousands if not more, and were spread over entire Punjab region, the evidence for many such gruesome atrocities come not from the survivors such as these women, but interestingly from the Muslim chroniclers themselves who very proudly mention these infidel slayings as a "service to Islam ". Such as one account by Nur Ahmad Chishti who recorded that Mir Mannu “killed thousands of Sikhs” daily. Once, on the day of Muslim festival, he beheaded 1100 Sikhs” in public.

Even today, 200 years later, Islamists are doing the same Islam barbarity upon the Yezidi women and children in Iraq, at the time of writing this article.

Could anything be more painful for Sikh women than to watch and witness the gruesome butchery of their own sons and husbands? These women maintained strong conviction in their Sikh faith in the face of extreme atrocites. In those days Sikhs were persecuted because they were considered infidels by Muslims & today Sikhs become victims in the United States because they are confused with Muslims. Its my hope that readers will share & help avoid such confusion.

Some people may wonder why didn't these women convert for a moment to save their children & themselves, be released & when free then go back to worshipping your old religion again? this way atleast they could save their & their babies life and go on worshipping your old religion like before once you have appeased the Muslims by fake-converting to Islam ?

-- the important thing here is that the Sikh resistance shown by these women was not a fight to worship in "Sikh way" rather than "Islamic way", the reader should not mistakenly consider this heroic resistance of Sikh women as some blind intoxication with Sikhism so much so that they sacrificed their children but foolishly refused to abandon Sikhism. The Sikh women here were not being obstinate about "being a Sikh to the last moment of breath". This sacrifice shown here is the highest epitome of fight for principles in Sikh history, for which life had to be given. This Sikh resistance here, was primarily to stop the spread of Islamic ideology in India at all costs; instilling a blind faith & a cult like commitment to die for Sikhism was NOT the objective here as it might seem to some. The Sikhs of that time understood very well the dangers of Islam & the hate it perpetuates towards humanity. If Islam was just another peaceful religion, then the Sikhs could just as well have converted to Islam if it was just a spiritual & peaceful religion like any other religion; meaning why die for Sikhism if all religions are same? The only way to stop the hateful ideology of Islam, was not to give in to forced Islamic conversion at all costs. Infact this was the only option available to them, today Islam has a very weak chance against the advent of internet and democracy in many powerful nations; but in those times many powerful civilizations were rapidly collapsing in the face of Islamic jihad. In India in one generation, either all infidels would be dead or would have converted to Islam.
Converting to Islam to save ones' neck was already common place & the 'logical thing' to do during this time in the spread of Islamic rule in India. Many infidels in India who were forced to convert to Islam to save their necks, actually did indeed convert to Islam, and then went on to practice their old Hindu / Buddhist religion secretly inside their homes; but outwardly they put on a Islamic name, Islamic rituals/circumcision, Muslim beard just to save their necks. Over a few generations, they became more Islamic, more radicalized and started to feel a connection with pan-Islamic pride and anti-infidel mindset radicalized them and within a few generations, the descendants of once forced-converted-closet Hindus had turned into the same monster, their ancestors had tried to save themselves from. Today their descendants are called "Pakistani's", the world's finest producer of ongoing terrorism and a nuclear contributor to Muhammads' 1400 year old legacy of jihad. The ancestors of present day Muslims were all Closet-Hindus at one time. They practiced ancient Hindu festivals like Holi upto 2 or 3 generations even after converting to Islam.Even today some of Pakistani's keep their old Hindu surnames.

This Sikh resistance as shown here, was the fight against Islamic ideology and its spread across human minds, and for this sacrifices such as that of these brave women had to be made, not because they were careless about their babies life, nor that they were intoxicated with Sikhism as is commonly seen in many blind cult faiths, but because one of the Principles of Sikhism is to put welfare of society above ones' individual welfare. The purpose of a Sikhs' life is not to be selfish about one's survival but about the survival of "society" / "community" at large, this means the extent of harm done by self-sacrifice of these Sikh women is minor as compared to the damage to the society that would have been done if Islam is allowed to be spread in the Indian society. This can be seen today, old civilizations now turned Islamic.

Had these women converted to Islam they would have saved their lives and their babies, but it would have lead to perpetual spread of Islamic poison in society, as we can see with the emergence of Pakistan, which is far worse than personal death of these women & the immense grief of massacre of their babies. It was only after this immense sacrifice that the Sikhs less than 5% of Punjab, were able to rule over Punjab and tame the Muslim majority areas. No other episode in history has seen a slaughtered tribe taking the enemy head on in less than a generations time; and rendering North India free of Islam. In the grand scheme of life, the sacrifice of these women was necessary.

- On another note, humans are social animals. Its called Pack mentality... Muslims love it. Once anybody converts, Muslims will shout out loud as when some celebrity converts to Islam, they mean to show that as an example that Islam is true. If these women had converted even for a moment, an example would have been set; and a lot more people would not have stood up to fight against islam. The idea was to show strong resistance at all costs to stand up against Islamic oppression & you you couldn't put an end to Islam in India if these brave Sikh men & women just converted..
These brave women sacrificed their babies & set a great precedent at that time. Taking inspiration from these brave women & other Sikh martyrdom that followed many more people joined the Sikh resistance & did not accept forced conversions and fiercely fought against Islamic oppression. Within next 50 years, Sikhs who were less than 5% in Punjab, not only destroyed & took over the Islamic empire in Punjab, but also ruled over that region which was majority Muslim something unparalleled in history till date, it is to say that Sikhism on the verge of being extinction, did not run away to safer parts of the world, but stood right there steadfast and rather kicked the enemy out of Punjab. By 1800, Punjab with a sizeable Muslim population was ruled over by a Sikh emperor who tamed their jihadi tendencies, by closing several mosques that called for jihad, banned muslim calls to azaans in the streets of his capital and wrested half of Afghanistan east of Khybar pass. This put a stop to Islamic spread in India. Today there is no Islam in as much as half of Punjab (todays' North India). Sikhs who numbered less than 5% of a population could not have saved their future generations from Islam, but for the Bravery of these women. In the grand scheme of life, the sorrow & sacrifices faced by the Sikh women must have been small and necessary. Today we are in much better and safer position with the advent of internet to face Islamic jihad. But will we use our freedoms today to carry on the fight of these women? These women belong not just to Sikh faith but a beacon of inspiration for all of us freedom loving people.THESE ARE MUSLIMS AND THEIR HEADGEAR.. BEWARE OF THESE GUYS!!

MUSLIM RELIGIOUS ELDERS, like this man from Yemen, often wear a turban wrapped around a cap known in Arabic as a kalansuwa. These caps can be spherical or conical, colorful or solid white, and their styles vary widely from region to region. Likewise, the color of the turban wrapped around the kalansuwa varies. White is thought by some Muslims to be the holiest turban color, based on legends that the prophet Mohammed wore a white turban. Green, held to be the color of paradise, is also favored by some. Not all Muslims wear turbans. In fact, few wear them in the West, and in major cosmopolitan centers around the Muslim world, turbans are seen by some as passé.

AFGHAN MUSLIM MEN wear a variety of turbans, and even within the Taliban, the strict Islamic government that controls much of the country, there are differences in the way men cover their heads. This Taliban member, for example, is wearing a very long turban — perhaps two twined together — with one end hanging loose over his shoulder. The Taliban ambassador to Afghanistan, on the other hand, favors a solid black turban tied above his forehead. And some men in Afghanistan do not wear turbans at all, but rather a distinctive Afghan hat.

IRANIAN MULLAHS wear black or white turbans wrapped in the flat, circular style shown in this image of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The word turban is thought to have originated among Persians living in the area now known as Iran, who called the headgear a dulband.

ARAB MUSLIM KAFFIYEH is not technically a turban. It is really a rectangular piece of cloth, folded diagonally and then draped over the head — not wound like a turban. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has made the kaffiyeh famous in recent times. However, the kaffiyeh is not solely Palestinian. Men in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Persian Gulf states wear kaffiyehs in colors and styles that are particular to their region. Jordanians, for example, wear a red and white kaffiyeh, while Palestinians wear a black and white one. And a man from Saudi Arabia would likely drape his kaffiyeh differently than a man from Jordan. The black cord that holds the kaffiyeh on one’s head is called an ekal.

DESERT PEOPLES & MUSLIM TERRORISTS have long used the turban to keep sand out of their faces, as this man from Africa is likely doing. Members of nomadic tribes have also used turbans to disguise themselves. And sometimes, the color of a person’s turban can be used to identify his tribal affiliation from a distance across the dunes. This man’s turban is a very light blue. In some parts of North Africa, blue is thought to be a good color to wear in the desert because of its association with cool water.
 

KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE

ISLAM AND THE WHITE SLAVE TRADE.

LEARN REAL HISTORY ABOUT HOW MUSLIMS HAVE TREATED WHITES WHEN THEY CONTROL THEIR WORLDS!

 

Did you know that Muslims branded white slaves with hot irons – then as well as now

“There is a long history of girls being kidnapped from Europe and ending up in Morocco [and from there to Turkey and Saudi Arabia].”
— Portugese police on child abduction

A Medieval painting showing Muslims branding Caucasian girls captured in sex-slave raids into Christian Europe. Muslims who purchased such girls in Islamic slave markets had them branded with red-hot irons.

.

WHEN EUROPEANS GOT INTRODUCED TO ISLAM:

American and European historians have studied all aspects of the enslavement of Africans by whites, but have deliberately ignored the slavery of whites by North Africans, during approximately the same period as the transatlantic traffic, and which devastated hundreds of coastal communities. In the thought of today’s nations, slavery is only of blacks, while the Mediterranean slave history is, in fact, more horrible than American slavery. UNESCO behaves with hypocrisy obscuring trafficking in Arabia and Africa, while forgetting the history of abuse of Europeans.
Muslim invasions, theft, mass murders, rape waves, booty raids, slave raids, wars continuing from 620 AD until as late as 1920 AD without interruption, destroyed the entire European Classical and Medieval civilization leaving nothing but a shell.

.
Why is there so little interest in the slavery that took place in the Mediterranean while the education and reflection on the slavery of blacks never ends? As the slaves of white masters, white slaves do simply not fit “the master narrative of European imperialism”. Patterns of victimization so dear to intellectuals require white wickedness, not white suffering. For centuries, Europeans themselves lived in fear of the whip. With a little effort, it is possible to imagine the Europeans concerned about slavery as much as blacks. If the Europeans had grievances regarding the slaves of the galleys in the same way that blacks have grievances for workers in the fields, European policy would be certainly different. There would be no creeping excuses for the “Crusades”.

Muslims attacked our countries relentlessly on slave and booty raids. From 620 AD onwards reaching all the way into 1920 AD there was not a single year of peace from Muslim aggression. How come our children are not being taught the truth in school? Because oil trade and Arab financing demand that people should be lied about Islam. Therefore, all trade must cease once and for all, completely, with all Muslim nations.

Completely ignored from educational materials is the sixteenth centuries of white slave raids by Muslims that were more numerous than Africans deported to the Americas. Everyone speaks of the black slave but nobody talks about the enslavement of whites by Muslims. In short, the slavery of the European white population by Muslims should also be acknowledged and talk about. If the Europeans had grievances regarding the slaves of the galleys in the same way that blacks carry grievances for workers in the fields, European policy would certainly be different, there would be no excuses made for the Crusades painted them in a distorted light; minarets would not push across Europe, and the Turkey would not dream of joining the European Union.
The current Western mentality mode demonstrate severe amnesia about his unfortunate story of its own people forced into slavery of whites, submitted by hundreds and hundreds of thousands to the ferule (submission) of islam (more a million during the 16th and 17th centuries and subsequently). This Treaty of white surpasses in number the digits of the slave which is estimated at 800,000 people, so there was more annually razzies white slave than Africans deported to the Americas, this trade, they practiced for centuries and it remains today, one of their unfortunate specialties (Mauritania) and elsewhere in some Muslim countries.

Muslims negotiating the price of a European slave captured in slave raids across Europe. Over 6 million Europeans are estimated to have been taken as slaves, although the numbers are likely much higher considering these raids continued for more than 1,000 years. It is due to these raids that Europe has a history of repeated bans on slavery since the 1300’s, that constantly failed.
.

When the Arabs began to arrive in Vieste (South of the Italy) in 1554, they kidnapped 6,000 whites. The Algerians took 7,000 slaves in the same year in the Bay of Naples. Spain also suffered large-scale attacks. After a raid on Grenada in 1556, which reported 4,000 men, women and children captured into slavery, they were told that it was “raining Christians on Algiers”, and that these raids dropped the price of slaves so much that slave masters could “barter a Christian for an onion”. The appearance of a large fleet could scare an entire population inland, emptying the entire coastal regions. The Muslims did not object to desecrate churches and often ignored the bells, to reduce to silence the distinctive voice of Christianity.
Between 1530 and 1780, there were almost a million and a half of white European Christians enslaved by Muslims of the Barbary Coast. This surpasses the generally accepted figure of 800,000 Africans transported to the colonies in North America and later in the United States. There has been estimates of 3 – 6 million Europeans being taken into slavery. But considering that the slave raids and attacks were relentless for over 1,000 years and not the 250 years from 1530 to 1780, we can presume these numbers are highly understated.
Not only were the white slaves goods, but they were above all infidels, and deserved all the suffering of a master imposed them. Christian slaves were often so abundant and so cheap that he had no interest in their well-being or prolonged health, if at least from an economic perspective, and many owners worked them until premature death and quickly bought replacements.
The Christian West occupied only the third place on the podium of slavery. Twelve million people were deported to the Caribbean and the Americas. But others have done worse on the second step of the podium, there… blacks enslave themselves (Blacks against blacks), which produced at least 200 million captured people sold in Muslim slavery for 14 centuries.

.
MUSLIM SLAVERY TODAY: SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY OWNED USA CHILD SEX/REPRODUCTIVE SLAVES
“I would like to come back to my United States family. I really want to see my Dad who I was closest but I have two children by the Prince now, a boy and a girl. I never see him unless I am fertile. I feel close only to my children because I have no way out. I would like to live back in the United States with them but I don’t see that ever happening because the Prince is my master and I am his girl.”
— – A USA child reproductive slave in Saudi Arabia note smuggled out by an Asian area work slave assigned to her.
.
ARABIAN PENINSULA AND THE INTERNATIONAL SEX SLAVE TRADE
The Arabian Peninsula inhabitants have long been involved in purchasing slaves. Up until recently, most of these slaves were purchased in Africa. With the advent of oil wealth the Saudi princes have been able to extend their slave purchases throughout the world. This has enabled the Saudi princes to become more selective and specialized in their tastes for slaves.
The Saud family continue to be the prime purchasers on the international slave trade and are known as high end buyers. The Saudi Arabian Government continues to refuse to sign the United Nations treaties on slavery or other human rights issues because they do not want to be subject to their provisions.
They will not sign extradition treaties even with Washington.
They constantly declare they are free of slavery but will not allow international scrutiny. We will deal with the kidnaping of US male and female children by Saudi princes and their associates in this issue. We will substantiate the pattern of abuse using documented occurrence where the princes and their associates have been caught.
.
STATE DEPARTMENT SENSITIVITIES TOWARDS THE SAUDI ARABIAN INTERNATIONAL SLAVE TRADE
It has been an open secret in Washington that the State Department has been extremely sensitive to criticism of its actions regarding Saud Arabia and its princes. There has been an unusual amount of personnel turnover at the Saudi Arabian desk where officials showing the slightest tendency towards ethics and morality are either transferred or terminated to make an example to others.
Why the State Department sensitivity? There are things going on in Saudi Arabia which are so embarrassing to Washington that if the United States citizenry knew, their worst fears about Washington would be corroborated. We will deal with one of these sensitivities in this issue, child abduction by Saudi princes. This is one of several issues we have been reluctant to publish because of the emotional ramifications to families of children who have been abducted around the world in general and the United States in particular.
We had to balance what the Saud princes involved in these abductions would do upon publication. In considering publishing this article against the potential benefits of making known their actions, we chose the latter. The humanitarian action would be for the Saudi Arabian Government to return the sex slaves to their US families so they could receive hospitalization and rehabilitation. We believe this will be considered impractical because of the numbers as well as the legal and political ramifications.

We have seen time and time again US media reported scandals when slaves of Saudi princes and their associates brought into the United States try to escape. The State Department then intervenes on behalf of the Saudi princes with diplomatic or retroactive diplomatic immunity.

This is the same Saudi Arabia who Financed Hussein Obama's Education at Harvard.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/saudi-billionaire-did-help-obama-into-harvard/

Saudi Arabia's Funding of American Mosques

Today, it has been estimated that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi influence, described by both scholars and U.S. officials as a radical, violent philosophical platform used by terrorists and their supporters to justify violence against Christians, Jews and other "non-believers."

This is part of the Obama Agenda!!


YOU SHOULD KNOW  & WANT TO STOP IT!

Can MARCO RUBIO serve as President or Vice President. REad and tell me what you think!

As much as one may like a Candidate... you must love the Constitution  MORE.

The question must be addressed. Can Marco Rubio legally serve as President or Vice President of America. Is it allowed by the Constitution as it is written.. TODAY!

Rubio is, quite simply, not a "natural-born citizen" by the accepted legal, English-language standard as it has been known throughout American history. He was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents. 
 
I know this question is not a popular notion among Republicans who support either Rubio or Ted Cruz.
 
Remember it wasn't popular among Democrats when we challenged Obama's eligibility.

Shouldn't the Constitution always trump political expediency ?

You cannot be a Consistent Conservative with principles to Restore America .... IF you apply on standard of Obama and another standard for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.


If we don't adhere to the Constitution on matters as significant as Presidential eligibility, then the Constitution ceases to be a meaningful document for guiding our nation. 

If not then, it becomes the kind of living document that many liberals have claimed it should be - ever changing to new circumstances. Who knows when someone can then challenge the 2nd amendment and change that too?

Here are the facts:

Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975, four years after Marco Rubio was born.

That's really all you have to know. That simple fact — one not in dispute — disqualifies him legally, barring an amendment to the Constitution or a complete and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution, from being president or vice president. 

Those are the only two offices in the U.S. that have such a requirement.

The definition of natural-born citizen approved by the first U.S. Congress can be seen in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which regarded it as a child born of two American parents. The law, specifying that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil, stated: "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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

While the act was repealed five years later, it, nevertheless, represented the will of the Congress that someone with dual loyalties not lead the U.S.

Rep.John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the 14th Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is "born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." 

"The Law of Nations," a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father's citizenship was a loyalty issue: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. ... In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Significantly, when the U.S. Senate resolved in 2008 that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Republican presidential nominee, was a natural-born citizen, it specified that his parents were American citizens.

The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama, stated that McCain — born to two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, "is a 'natural-born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." Slick don't you think? It made sure that McCain would not challenge Obama's Status! Two peas in an illegal pod scheme!

Of course, this raises a question: What about Obama? It's a good question — and goes right to heart of all the controversy about Obama's eligibility for the last four years. He is not eligible. He never was. It doesn't matter where he was born. It never did. What mattered — and still matters — is who his parents were. According to Obama and the limited and questionable documentation he has provided to date, his father was a Kenyan student who never became a U.S. citizen. 

Therefore, he NEVER met the test of eligibility. The fact that he has reluctantly provided highly questionable documentation to establish his birth in Hawaii is irrelevant, except that it suggests he is trying to obscure the real facts and the real substance of his eligibility. I guess if his father was Frank Marshall Davis we might have another discussion. A DNA test could help to set the record straight once and for all!!

But now... back to the issue of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. It would by hypocritical and wrong and set a dangerous precedent for all section in our Constitution if we accept the Leftis notion that the Constitution is not ABSOLUTE!!
 
America permited an ineligible Obama to serve as president by a de facto changing of the constitutional standard through neglect and ignorance for the future. Now if we look the other way for our Candidates we have lost our moral high ground with regards to the Constitution and we open the door for interpretation of every ammendment!

Sure if America wants to have a national debate about the meaning of this requirement, let's have it in ways allowed by the Constitution. If not dissolve the Constitution and start anew ( that would be Revolution). But let's not allow conventional expedient wisdom on this matter to become so corrupted that we accept this on our side blithely as though it does NOT MATTER because it affects our Candidate's eligibility. If we do we have become political bastards just like them. We have no standing in the future!

And let's not stumble into nominating a president or vice president who tests the boundaries of eligibility in such a monumentally important election in 2016.

WE MUST STAND ON PRINCIPLE OR LOSE OUR REPUBLIC !

Can TED CRUZ legally serve as President or Vice President? Read and tell me what your think.

I like Ted Cruz.. I really Do!

....but in this extremely volatile dangerous world can we afford any controversy when it comes to choosing our NEXT President?  We cannot afford the controversy of the Obama Citizenship issue in our ranks. We need a total true focus on winning without any distractions

Here is the Cruz Citizenship Timeline (documented)
This is an authenticated timeline of known facts concerning the citizenship of Senator Ted Cruz.

I like Ted Cruz, 

I have been doing some detailed research and some gut wrenching soul searching and I have come to the conclusion that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be President or Vice President.

Sure there are many scholars who have argued that Cruz like Obama are both "Natural Born Citizens" but read the post and tell me why I am wrong? 

I really like Cruz and wanted him to be Donald Trump's VP and then go on to be the President 8 years from 2016 but I cannot in good conscience endorse him after the research I have done. Ted Cruz is a great American who would be a great VP to Trump and President in the future, but if I am to be consistent I cannot support Cruz in those two positions. I do this with a heavy heart, but the Constitution trumps my emotions.

FACTUAL CRUZ CITIZENSHIP TIMELINE

(Everything presented in this timeline is a matter of public record. All of it is based upon publicly reported events, public statements made by Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz, officials with the Elect Ted movement or US and Canadian officials."

1957  - After working as a teen to help Fidel Castro gain power in Cuba, and being imprisoned for his actions by the Batista regime, Cuban Rafael Cruz applies for admittance to the University of Texas as a foreign student and enters the US on a four year student visa to attend four years of college. He is a Cuban citizen attending a US college on a student visa obtained through the US Consulate in Havana.

1961 – 1962 After graduating college at the University of Texas, and upon the expiration of his student visa, Cruz Sr. applied for and received “political asylum” and was issued a “green card”.  A green card is a permit to reside and work in the United States, without becoming a “citizen” of the United States, in this case, under political asylum from Castro’s Cuba. His citizenship status was that of a Cuban national living and working in the United States, under a green card work permit. According to US laws, the “green card” holder must maintain permanent resident status, and can be removed from the United States if certain conditions of this status are not met.

1964-1966  Cruz Sr. takes a few odd  jobs, marries and moves to Canada to work in the oil fields. The Cruz family resides in Canada for the next eight years. “I worked in Canada for eight years,”  Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” – (From an interview with  NPR )

 1970  - Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and  Naturalization Laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz. As a result, US statutes would have voided the prior “green card” status which requires among other things, permanent residency within the United States and obviously, not becoming a citizen of another country during the time frame of the US green card.

1974   The Cruz family moves to the United States when Ted is approximately four years old. Rafael Cruz has publicly stated that he remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he applied for and became a US Naturalized citizen in 2005. As a result, his wife and son were also Canadian citizens, his son being born a citizen of Canada in 1970.

2005 - Rafael Cruz applies for legal US citizenship and renounces his Canadian citizenship. No record of Ted renouncing his Canadian citizenship or applying for US citizenship exists as of 2005

2013   Freshman Senator Ted Cruz is a rising star in the Tea Party movement, and calls for him to run for the White House begin. in July, Ted Cruz is questioned by the press about his interest in running for President, and the issue of his Canadian born citizenship is brought up

August 2013  As Ted’s political stock rises , so do press questions about his eligibility for office. Ted decides to quiet the questions by releasing his birth certificate, which now becomes absolute proof of  Ted’s Canadian citizenship at birth, 1970, Calgary. The release of  the Canadian birth records only serve to further fuel the controversy

Ted seeks legal counsel, as the media is now pressing members of Canadian Immigration and  Naturalization to clear the matter up, when instead, Canadian officials confirm the Ted Cruz was in fact  born a legal citizen of Canada, the son of two parents who had also applied for and received Canadian citizenship prior to Ted’s birth.

Generally speaking, under the Citizenship  Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at Birth unless their Parent was a  foreign diplomat.

So Ted’s Legal counsel advises Ted to “renounce his Canadian citizenship” in order to make himself eligible to run for the Presidency. Of course, renouncing one’s original citizenship only further proves one’s original citizenship.

May  2014  Ted Cruz legal counsel files to renounce Ted’s Canadian citizenship in an effort to make him eligible to run for high office under the natural born Citizen clause Article 11 in the US Constitution.

 

Austin, TX   Ted Cruz has given up his citizenship from his birth country of Canada.

 News that he had renounced his citizenship was first reported by the Dallas Morning News. The newspaper also broke that Cruz had dual Canadian- US Citizenship when he released his birth certificate in August.

However  the Constitution does not require that one be only an American citizen, but rather a natural born Citizen.

SO THE CONTROVERSY RAGES ON AS TO WHO IS A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” IF OBAMA IS NOT.. THEN TED CRUZ IS NOT!!

My question remains .. CAN WE AFFORD THE DISTRACTION OF THE CONTROVERSY? AMERICA’S POSITION IS SO PRECARIOUS THAT I PREFER A CLEAN PATH

This problem exists for Marco Rubio as well.

A “natural born Citizen” of the United States is a child born in the USA of two (2) U.S. Citizens. The parents can be Citizens by Birth or they can be Citizens by Naturalization after immigrating to the USA. But to create a “natural born Citizen” of the United States both parents must be Citizens at the time the child is born in the USA. See this legal reference book used by the founders and framers of our Constitution: Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212, Emer de Vattel, 1758-1797.  The overwhelming majority (probably 85%+) of citizens in the United States are natural born Citizens.

This clause was added for future presidents as a national security clause. It is from the group of natural born Citizens that our founders prescribed in the presidential eligibility clause in Clause 5, Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution that we shall choose a President and Commander in Chief of our military as a strong check against foreign influence via birth allegiances on the person in that singular and most powerful office. One needs all three citizenship legs to be a natural born Citizen and have sole allegiance and claim on you at birth to one and only one country — the United States: 1. Born in the USA. 2. Father must be a U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized). 3. Mother must be U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized). Like a three legged stool if you take away any of these three citizenship legs of the Article II constitutional intent and requirement to being a natural born Citizen, i.e., being born with unity of citizenship in and sole allegiance to the USA, the child is born with more than one country’s citizenship and claim of allegiance/citizenship on them at their birth and thus they are NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States.  And as in the analogy of a stool designed to stand on three legs and it is missing a leg, it falls down, likewise the person’s claim to natural born Citizenship fails if the person does not have all three citizenship legs required to be a natural born Citizen at the time of their birth.

SO IF WE AS CONSERVATIVES ARE TO APPLY THE SAME STANDARD FOR ALL.. IT IS WITH A HEAVY HEART THAT I MUST CONCLUDE THAT TED CRUZ IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT. HE WOULD MAKE AN AWESOME ATTORNEY GENERAL.