By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots http://www.americanpbn.com/

Once again, now as their candidate, Donald Trump, faces not gathering enough delegates to secure the nomination on the 1^st ballot at the convention, Trump’s low-information followers are screaming more birther propaganda

“Cruz is FINISHED,” they say…”HE’S NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” they post…”HE’S INELIGIBLE…THE CONSTITUTION…THE CONSTITUTION!!!”

I’m not trying to change the minds of Trump’s blind followers here. There is little point in that as their minds are made up with little to no care for the end result. In that way, they’re like lemmings…blindly following their chosen leader over a cliff. No…this article is for those whose eyes are still open, and have yet to make their 2016 choice who might be influenced by Trump’s low-information voter propaganda.

In order to not be fooled by Trump’s fools…real information is needed so…here it is.

Ted Cruz is eligible to run for, and hold the nation’s highest office, and he is a natural born citizen.

Without research and proof…those words would mean nothing more than the words of Trump’s blind followers harping and hawking the Cruz is ineligible propaganda so…allow me to give you the proof that he is eligible and a natural born citizen.

Let’s start with the most recent and work our way back.

There have been several lawsuits filed by Trump’s low-information birthers in various courts around the country, all claiming that Ted Cruz is not eligible to run, and one by one, in court after court, those cases are being thrown out. Trump’s low-info crowd will tell you that those cases are being tossed over technicalities and to some extent, that’s true, but there are a couple of things they won’t tell you…first, that those cases being tossed on technicalities lack standing. That means that whoever filed the lawsuit couldn’t show a particle of harm that would come to them if Cruz were allowed to continue or be on their state’s ballot. In other words…they were filed by fools or propagandists.

The other is that a couple of those lawsuits were found to have merit…meaning that whoever filed them did show, or convinced the court, that they would be somehow injured were Cruz not eligible to run.  The problem for the low-information birthers there is that those cases have been decided in favor OF Ted Cruz…meaning that the courts found that Cruz is eligible to run for and hold the office of president and that Ted Cruz is, by law, a natural born citizen.

Birthers will often point to SCOTUS cases like Happersett and Ark as their proof, but the truth…the truth they won’t tell you is, that the Supreme Court has never heard a case on natural born. Never. Not once, not ever, and as that is the truth of the matter, neither Happersett nor Ark nor any other case they may choose to cite were cases on natural born, so no SCOTUS case has ever decided or defined natural born.

That’s just a fact but facts don’t really matter to Trump’s birthers.

Birthers will try to baffle you with Vattel’s “Laws of Nations,” because in it, Vattel defines natural born, but there are a few facts that you need to know if you’re interested in making a well-informed rather than a low-information decision.

Vattel’s  “Laws of Nations,” is not now nor has it ever been a matter of U.S. law. Vattel’s book was nothing more than a how to book…as in…how to maintain a European styled monarchy and we are not now nor have we ever been…a monarchy. Not only that, but Vattel’s “Laws of Nations,” wasn’t written in English…it was translated into English, and the first translation ever to use the term “natural born citizen,” didn’t come about until after our Constitution was ratified. Therefore…Vattel could not possibly have been the inspiration for including “natural born,” in our Constitution as birthers try to claim. It’s a lie.

Another lie the low-information bunch throws at you will be what they claim to know as the original intent of the Founders and Framers. Birthers will claim that the original intent of the Founders and Framers was that they defined “natural born” as a child born to two parents who were U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil.

There are a couple of facts here that are very important to the well-informed that mean nothing to the low-information crowd.

First…there has never been a single law on the books nor a single U.S. Code nor statute that stipulates two citizen parents are necessary for their child to be considered a natural born citizen.  In fact…quite the opposite is true. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: “either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement.”

In order to get to the second fact, we must first do a little recapping and exposing of other birther falsehoods.

Birthers will try to claim that the reason “natural born,” is even in the Constitution is because George Washington insisted on it after receiving a letter from John Jay, and because Jay had a copy of Vattel’s “Laws of Nations.”  Therefore, according to birthers the original intent was Vattel’s definition.

Okay…let’s have a well-informed look at that claim. While John Jay, our nation’s first Supreme Court Chief Justice did indeed write to Washington and suggest that “natural born” replace “citizen” in our Constitution…and Jay did have a copy of Vattel’s book, however…since Vattel didn’t use the phrase, “natural born” in the copy that Jay had, and because a translation using “natural born” wasn’t done until after the Constitution was ratified…Vattel’s definition obviously was not John Jay’s reasoning.

It would be more likely that Jay simply didn’t want “citizen” used as the official wording because that would have also included naturalized citizens, which neither he, nor Washington wanted. Hence…natural born citizen.

Birthers are vastly annoyed when it is pointed out to them that the Constitution never defines natural born, and therefore, the Constitution itself doesn’t restrict Cruz from running, which is why they insist on their original intent lies to counter the facts so…what are the facts?

Well…there was one time…in fact…the only time that the phrase “natural born” has ever been used as a matter of U.S. law, code or statute…the Naturalization Act of 1790…which states, “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 . . . .”

Enter Ted Cruz…whose mother was a U.S. citizen and whose father had, by every account, been ”resident in the United States.”

Now then, before I go into this further…a few facts regarding the Act of 1790, and the original intent of the Founders and Framers.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was written by the 1^st Congress of the United States and among the Members of that congress were Judge William Patterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris and William Samuel Johnson…Oliver Ellsworth, James Madison, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry and James Monroe. Madison was also known as the father of our Constitution…all were members of the Constitutional Convention except for Monroe, who would later serve as president. Ellsworth was one of the principle drafters of our Constitution and Sherman was on the Committee of 5 who worked with Thomas Jefferson in drafting and finalizing the Declaration of Independence, and most of those named here actually signed the Constitution.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the people who drafted, decided upon and signed the Constitution, being some of the very same folks who drafted, and decided upon the Naturalization Act of 1790 all had the same intent, but before I continue…another fact worth noting…as it was George Washington who, after receiving a letter from John Jay, got the phrase “natural born citizen” into the Constitution…and it was also George Washington who, as the 1^st president…actually signed the Naturalization Act of 1790 into law.

It is therefore also reasonable to conclude that if Washington had a differing original intent as to the definition, he would not have signed the Naturalization Act of 1790 into law just as it is reasonable to conclude that had our Founders and Framers had a different original intent in mind regarding natural born, some of those same founders and framers would have made sure the definition of NBC in the Naturalization Act of 1790 would have been different from what it was.

Okay…onward…

Birthers will make a point to tell you that the naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795…and it was…but they will also try to convince you that it was repealed because they realized they got the “natural born” definition wrong, but did they?

As always, there are well-informed facts which lay waste to the low-information claims, but let’s just throw the low-info bunch a bone…for a moment. Let’s say the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795 because they “realized” the definition of NBC was incorrect…Are we to believe that so many of the people who wrote, drafted, passed and signed the Constitution botched the definition of NBC in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and didn’t realize it for 5 years…especially in a day and age where they actually read and knew what was in the bill before they passed the bill? And why…if they got in wrong in 1790, didn’t they replace it in 1795 with a reworded definition so as to “correct” their error?

Simple answer…they weren’t in error regarding that definition and therefore, there was no such error to correct, but birthers will tell you that the reason they didn’t offer up a new definition of NBC in 1795 was because “everybody knew what it meant,” and that it meant exactly what Vattel said it meant.  That doesn’t hold water either, because as the well-informed already know, Vattel never used the term NBC, and if “everybody knew what it meant so there was no reason to offer a definition,” then why did they define it in 1790 to begin with?

But the question, as always, is what did the Founders and Framers know and when did they know it? Put another way…if “natural born” didn’t come from Vattel, and it clearly did not, then from where did it come?

The wording and the meaning of “natural born” that would have been readily apparent and known to our Founders and Framers would have come from the reign of Queen Anne around 1708 when English law stipulated that, “the Children of all natural born Subjects born out of the Ligeance of Her Majesty, Her Heirs, and Successors shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born Subjects of this Kingdom to all Intents Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.”

As we were not a monarchy and the people of our new nation were not subjects…simply remove any mention of the monarchy and replace “subject” with “citizen” and what you come to is the definition of “natural born citizen” as written in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Low-information claims are always exposed as desperate lies when confronted by even the most simple, well-informed facts, but like the lemmings, birthers will just continue to run toward the cliff and the well-informed fact is, that the only time “natural born citizen” has ever appeared in a U.S. law, code or statute, is in the Naturalization Act of 1790, written, drafted and passed by some of the exact same people who wrote, drafted and signed the Constitution, and therefore, stands, in terms of law, as the original intent of the Founders and Framers.

To read Part 2 of this 2 part report…CLICK HERE!!!