RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | September 29, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?
September 29, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's Emmy in Loveland, Colorado. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, it's great to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Hey, I'm no fan of the establishment.
They irritate me most of the time, but what if they want Christie to run for the same reason I want him to run?
Because he's the best at articulating conservatism, besides you and maybe Marco Rubio,
but there's no one else out there.

RUSH: That's an interesting question.
Let me ask you, why do you think they're not begging Rubio to run?
Rubio has been just as adamant as Christie that he doesn't want to run.
In a contest of conservatism, Rubio wins versus Christie.
So why are they not asking Rubio to run?

CALLER: You know, I don't know. Maybe it's --

RUSH: Well, part of it is -- (crosstalk)

CALLER: He'd be my second choice.

RUSH: Part of it is, I think,
that they genuinely believe that whoever the other nominees are can't win.
That's another thing that frosts me.
I think Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd could beat Obama in this election coming up because I think this is going to largely be about Obama.
It's going to be a referendum on his outright destruction of the wealth-creating genius of this country.
I think Elmer Fudd could win, but I'm more concerned than that.
I don't want to just get rid of Obama,
I want to take advantage of the opportunity we have to finally get a genuine, full-fledged, unapologetic conservative
because this is going to be a major task, Emmy, rolling this stuff back.
It's going to take more than one election, and it's going to take somebody fearless.
And we're not going to roll this stuff back having compromise and bipartisanship as our primary objectives.

CALLER: I agree.

RUSH: I think as far as the establishment's concerned, there are two things.
They don't want a conservative to win for that reason,
plus they do want to win.
And I think they probably think
Christie has a better chance than anybody else up there of beating Obama.
That's my guess. But I think what will happen is this:
Whoever gets the nomination, if it is somebody outside the approval of the establishment,
what then will happen is
that all these establishment types will then start trying to buddy up to the winner,
want to be part of his administration,
and then spend the rest of their lives saying
they were there at the right hand of this great, terrific president.
That's what happened to Reagan.
Half the people that opposed Reagan did end up, especially in the second term, doing things in his administration,
and they made the rest of their life career out of it.

To this day, some of these people still guest on television shows as Ronald Reagan's X, or Ronald Reagan's Y.
Even the during the era of Reagan is over period, which Mitch Daniels also uttered,
I should say, even when they were saying the era of Reagan was over,
still some of these marginal characters in the Reagan Administration's second term are still out there, claiming
they were there, they were in the inner circle, they were making all these decisions. (interruption)
I know it's a serious question, Snerdley.
Why aren't people telling Rubio it's not up to him?
You've got Chris Christie saying,
"It's got to be in me.
It isn't in me."
"Well, it's not up to you."
Why aren't they saying it to Rubio?
Because Rubio would win in a walkover.
Rubio would win in a landslide over Obama.

I'm hearing Bob McDonnell, Virginia, is the preferred veep candidate.
I wouldn't waste that on Rubio.
Emmy, thanks for the call.

Folks, it's not true that other conservatives are not well articulating our beliefs.
What's happening is
that they're all competing with each other for time during these debates.
That's a crowded stage up there
and they are having to actually face each other and contrast and compare themselves to each other.
Christie doesn't have to do this.
And this could be a well-planned strategery.
Look at it this way:
You've got the people that have announced and they're on the stage of these debates.
They have 30 seconds here, a minute there, but some of them get an unfair amount of time.
Some of them don't get very many questions asked of them.
Some, the questions that are asked are gotcha types.

They don't have clearly an unfettered opportunity to explain themselves on such a crowded stage.
They actually having to face each other, contrast and compare themselves to each other.
But Governor Christie isn't having to do any of that.
He can go give a speech at the Reagan Library or release a YouTube video,
and there's no challenge on the issues and there's nobody out there disagreeing or contrasting or harping on it.
He can say what he says about global warming or gun control, immigration, what have you,
and he's not getting dirty in the process. Nobody's opposing him.
Nobody is disagreeing with what he's saying.
He has a free ride, so to speak.

Perry, same thing.
Perry had a free ride before he jumped in.
Look at what happened to Perry when he got in.
He announces, he gets in, automatically jumps to the top of the list, becomes the target of everybody on stage.
He's not an accomplished debater and wasn't prepped for it.
Look what has happened to Perry.
Christie is not running that risk. Could be a good strategy.
Christie is out there making these speeches and YouTube videos and they stand all alone.
No disagreement, no challenging to any of it.
But Perry jumped in, very little was said about the specifics of his record.
I'm not attacking his record. I'm just saying it was not as carefully scrutinized.
Christie would go through that, too, if he got in.

So as far as Christie is concerned, there's an understandably good strategy in not getting in now.
Now, at some point he's going to have to.
But he gets a free ride all the way down the road where he's not in.
Once he gets in, everything changes.
Everybody on that stage will be gunning for him,
and things about his record that some of you may not know will surface.
And then you'll be scratching your heads going,
"Gee, can't we all get along?
Why are we tearing each other up?"
Nature of the beast.

But Rubio, Rubio would win in a walkover.
He's conservative. He's articulate. He's great-looking.
He's Hispanic and sounds very smart.
How can he possibly lose?
If this were the Democrat Party,
the party father would probably tell Obama to step aside and let Rubio run,
if Rubio were a Democrat.
There are more Hispanic voters now than there are blacks,
and Rubio's got more experience than Obama had when he decided to run.
I don't know how many times Rubio has voted "present" versus Obama.

Here's Richard, El Segundo, California.
Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, great speaking with you.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.

RUSH: Great to have you, sir.

CALLER: Your theme this morning has been Republican enthusiasm. Of course that equates to the voter turnout.
I understand that one of the major factors in us losing in '08 was that
Republicans were, quote, mad at Bush and many stayed home.
To me, that's ridiculous and childish.
We can't afford another four years of anything close to this socialist agenda.

RUSH: That happened in '06, by the way, too.

CALLER: I'm sure it's happened a number of times.

RUSH: Republicans stayed home because
they were mad at Republicans in Congress spending all the money.

CALLER: Yeah. I don't recall an election in my lifetime where it wasn't a choice of the lesser of the evils.
We've got to make some intelligent choices here
and it's absolutely essential that we must turn out in droves in order to overcome this obstacle.

RUSH: Frankly -- it's still 14 months out -- but I don't think that's a problem here.

CALLER: I hope you're correct.
We have to all do whatever we can to gin up the enthusiasm level and get these people to the polls.
They've got to understand what's at stake.

RUSH: I think they do. I think you'd be surprised.
I think you're going to be stunned. The voter enthusiasm...
The Gallup poll that's out today finds a 27 percentage point lead in voter enthusiasm, Republican over Democrat. (interruption)
Well, frankly, I'm not hearing people saying if it's X, they're not going to vote.
If I start hearing that, I'll talk to them about it. I'll fix it.
I'm not going to put up with that this time.
I'm not going to put up with that, "If it's X I'm not going to vote." (interruption)
Who? (interruption)
No. Shoot them at me!
If you've got some people who say
if Romney is the nominee they're not voting,
shoot them at me.

Let me just say, I haven't actually heard that specifically.
It doesn't surprise me. Some people think that.
I do know that there's a lot of passion for the proposition that Romney can't win,
and that if he does it's not enough to actually start rolling back what's going on.
Anyway, look, the reason why they're not pushing Rubio...
I'm going to answer my own question.
That's what I do.
I ask myself the best questions I'm ever asked and, therefore, I give the best answers.
They're not pushing Rubio because while they praise him, they don't think he has had enough experience yet.

And Rubio is --
sorry to say this, folks -- another example of the RINOs being wrong.
In case you have forgotten, Rubio was not initially supported by the Republican establishment.
Charlie Crist was.
I have not forgotten this.
Crist was supported by the Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican millionaires and billionaires.
Crist was supported by McCain and Graham, and on and on.
Rubio was the Tea Party candidate.
Rubio was the conservative candidate, the candidate supported by conservative talk radio.
Rubio was the outsider. But look what's happened.
Now that Rubio has won,
"Oh, yeah, everybody was involved in the campaign!
Everybody had a role in electing Rubio!"

You people have forgotten:
Charlie Crist was the guy,
and Rubio kept coming on and on and on, and the conservative energy behind him and his conservatism triumphed
-- and Crist started talking to Democrats about a role in the party.
The RINOs had nothing to do with Rubio triumphing.
The RINOs weren't even in his camp to start with.
Another reason why they're not pushing Rubio is he's too conservative for them.
With Obama on any ballot, this whole notion of "lesser of two evils," I don't think exists.
Nobody's in that camp on our side.
There is no "almost an Obama" on our side, even Romney.
I think this "lesser of two evils" business gets thrown out, too.
There's a whole lot of conventional wisdom here that's going to be stood on its head before this is all over.
Don't doubt me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the Rubio/Crist election is almost a great microcosm of what we are talking about:
The Republican establishment versus an insurgent conservative Tea Party.
If you go back and try to remember that, Rubio came from nowhere.
He was seen as unelectable.
"Way too extreme. Too much of a risk.
Charlie Crist, he's the elected governor. He's the sure bet.
Charlie Crist will give us the majority in the Senate.
Charlie Crist is the way we need to go.
Who cares that Crist may as well have been a Democrat?
We need another (R), somebody who has an (R) beside their name.
We don't care whether they're conservative or not.
We just need the numbers here because we want to be in charge of the money.
We want the committee chairmanships."

You remember who the first prominent politician to support Rubio was?
It was Jim DeMint, South Carolina Senator.
Jim DeMint was the first prominent politician to come out and support Rubio.
Rubio, the outsider, fighting his way in.
Now, after he wins, the RINOs, the establishment come to his side (after Charlie Crist imploded) and they talk him up for vice president.
But don't forget:
There wouldn't be any Marco Rubio in the Senate today
except for the conservative movement and Tea Party movement
and a conservative effort to beat back the establishment.
Rubio, I'm not saying he had no role. Don't misunderstand.
He was, of course, key, but he had the Republican establishment against him.
It's almost, as I say, a microcosm of what we are talking about and facing today as we choose a nominee.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

Weekly Standard: It’s Not About You - William Kristol

New York Post: Christie Seriously Considering Presidential Bid after GOP Prodding

AP: Tea Party Darling Sen. Marco Rubio Writing Memoir



RUSH:

[Mears]

bfl

[Yosemitest]

Rubio is ELIGIBLE to be President!

You didn't watch the video.
...and I thought I was stubborn. You got me beat by miles.

[rxsid]

Rubio is a 14th Amendment citizen, as found by the WKA court.

That doesn't make him a "natural born Citizen" since he was born in country to alien parents.

[Yosemitest]

From World Net Daily:

Vattel writes:
"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."

Rubio's parents were naturalized, and because Marco Rubio was under the age of 21, he was naturalized with them.

As James Madison said:

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage,
but in general place is the most certain criterion;
it is what applies in the United States;

Court rulings are NOT based on what is NOT said.

In Dean C. Haskins' video titled Natural Born Citizen for Dummies he talks about "Liberals" and their "The Disimination of Dis-Information" or "Propaganda".
Here as a pretty good transcript of that video, starting at what I think is relevant, starting around 5 munites and 45 seconds into it.

...So Won Kim Ark did not change the definition of "natural born citizen".
The Supreme Court set the precedent for the definition of "natural born citizen" in the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett.
Unlike the Won Kim Ark case which construed the 14th Amendment as the applicable law, and did not construe Article II section 1,
Minor established that "one who is born in this country to citizen parents is a "natural born citizen"
and therefore, does not need to rely upon the 14th Amendment.
Yes, the Supreme Court stopped short of even considering the 14th Amendment in their decision.
For they understood that the amendment didn't need to confer citizenship onto someone who already possessed it
by virtue of being a natural born citizen or born in this country to citizen parents.

Since Won Kim Ark construed only the 14th Amendment, and not Article II section 1, it did not supersede the ruling in Minor v. Happersett,
which did not construe the 14th Amendment, but only Article II Section 1.
Won Kim Ark was ruled to be a citizen by virtue of the fact, he was born in this country.
While Virginia Minor was ruled to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the fact that she was born in this country to citizen parents.

In so doing the Supreme Court directly construed Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
And to this day, it is the only Supreme Court Case to do so, which established the unaltered, binding precedent in 1875.
Any lower court in this country that would ever state otherwise would be in grave error, according to the Supreme Court precedent.

Not surprisingly, Barack Obama's supporters try to twist the clearly understandable decision in Minor v. Happersett by asserting an illogical argument.

They falsely claim that Supreme Court ruled that Mrs Minor was a "natural born Citizen" because she was born in this country to citizen parents.
BUT that the Court DIDN'T STATE that someone who was born in the country to parents who were NOT citizens were not also natural born citizens.


First, court rulings are based on "what is said", and NOT on what is NOT SAID.
In this case the court did not also say that the moon isn't made of cheese.
So are we to believe that in Minor v. Happersett the court affirmed that the moon is made of cheese?
Actually, as Mario Apuzzo points out,
while all trees are plants, all plants are not trees,
or while all "natural born citizen", not all citizens are "natural born citizens".
Also, if the justices believed that Mrs, Minor was a "natural born citizen" simply because she was born in this country,
they would have stopped there in what they wrote. But they didn't.
Supreme Court Justices are known to choose their words very carefully.
And they stated precisely that she was a "natural born citizen", because she was born in this country to citizen parents.
That is the historic definition of "natural born citizen".
The Supreme Court affirmed that definition in 1875 and they have never construed it differently.
Therefore, it is the "Legally Confirmed Definition" and a binding precedent on every court across this land.

But why would Obama's supporters be deceptive and lie about this president?
Is it just because they don't understand it?
No. It is because Obams's father was never a citizen of the United States
and according to this binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1875,
he is NOT a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires,
and therefore he is ineligible to be our President.

Additionally, the Supreme Court isn't evading this issue
because they think it might just be too difficult to determine what the law is concerning Obama's elgibility.
No. They are evading it because they know what the law is,
and they fear the consequences of ruling according to that law.
Barack Obama and his camp have continued to fuel the surface surrounding his birth documents by releasing two known forgeries,
precisely because they do not want the truth of this legal precedent to be at the forefront of public discourse.
It's far easier to make his fake birth certificates the center of a national circus,
than it would be to approach this Supreme Court precedent.
And our national leaders willingly continue to staff Obama's three ring national nightmare.

Never before in the history of America, have our leaders been so afraid of the rule of law.
But the rule of law is what has made this country.
If we allow they to shirk their duties in this matter, then the rule of law will be rendered of no effect.
And our country will soon go the way of every other country that succumb to fear.

Look ... I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired Air Traffic Controller.
This is complex, so I defer to the people I trust, and they say Rubio's eligible, ..., and I believe them.

[Yosemitest]

Typo correction:

Actually, as Mario Apuzzo points out,
while all trees are plants, all plants are not trees,
or while all "natural born citizen" are citizens, not all citizens are "natural born citizens".

[Yosemitest]

Typo Correction:

Never before in the history of America, have our leaders been so afraid of the rule of law.
But the rule of law is what has made this country.
If we allow them to shirk their duties in this matter,
then the rule of law will be rendered of no effect.
And our country will soon go the way of every other country that succumb to fear.

[edge919]

This is complex, so I defer to the people I trust, and they say Rubio's eligible, ..., and I believe them.

Unless Rubio's parents naturalized before he was born, then he would only be eligible for Congress, not president. That should be pretty easy to understand.

[Yosemitest]

I disagree, and so do the legal scholars I trust.

I refer you back to post #44.

[patlin]

I trust Mark Levin (post #63) because he's one of the best legal minds in the country.

As I said before, Mark publicly stated that citizenship is not his area of legal expertise, he then went on to excerpt the work of experts whom he respects, experts I had already quoted & linked to many moons before Levin even broached the subject on air. Experts who in their work say that the 14th Amendment did not give US citizenship to any child born of aliens, legal or illegal, period. But Mark conveniently left out those parts of the legal experts whom he quoted. Thus, Mark Levin is a political hack & jackka$$ who now has used his name & radio show to spread lies & propaganda for his own personal political choices over Constitutional law. But that won't stop me from buying his new book when it comes out. He does have a very solid stance on other areas of constitutional law & thus we still can learn from him. But as I have always said, listen to Mark, take what he proffers & then test it so you are absolutely 100% able to debate him on it using his own words against him. Why do you think he has never had one of these experts on the air? They are close associates of his you know? Why is that?

I would also think that you would trust Dean C. Haskins

I do not support Dean Haskins...there I said it!!!

As far as Apuzzo & Donofrio, well you'll find some of my researched tucked into their work and we 3 all agree that both parents must be US citizens PRIOR to the child being born. Period.

[edge919]

One of the sources you posted makes an assumption that simply isn’t supported by key Supreme Court decisions and your other post about the naturalization act of 1790 doesn’t even apply. It refers to children of citizens born abroad. Rubio was not born abroad to U.S. citizens.

[patlin]

Thus the perpetually open spigot of kool-aid from so called constitutional conservative media that continues to rot the brains of ignorant Americans. I actually am hoping that Mark tackles Article II citizenship in his new book so then he will have to take our calls.

[Yosemitest]

And your credentials are ... ???

[Yosemitest]

"Experts who in their work say that the 14th Amendment did not give US citizenship to any child born of aliens, legal or illegal, period."

Oh, then all those illegals jumping the border to birth their anchor babies, are doing it for what reason?

"... that both parents must be US citizens PRIOR to the child being born"

I refer you

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790). :
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
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:
Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

WHERE does it say that the children must be naturalized at the time of birth?
When the parents become naturalized, the children under the age of 21 also become naturalized.


Well, it's pretty plain that

Rubio IS eligible ... and IS a natural born Citizen.

[patlin]

And your credentials are ... ???

The power of ignorance stymies me. You haven't even read Mark's books have you?

Liberty & Tyranny, pg 154: “But does the 14th Amendment grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? The relevant part of the amendment reads that “all person, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of the United States.” This language requires more than birth within the United States. The amendment’s purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born in the United States and owed sole allegiance to it. Native Americans who were subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship. There is no legislative history supporting the absurd proposition that the 14th Amendment was intended to empower illegal aliens to confer American citizenship on their own babies as a result of their birth in the United States.”

The problem Mark has here is, is that Mark interjects the word “illegal” when the history Mark cites merely uses the word “alien” without reference to the legality of the parents immigration status. Thus Mark renders his work biased & based on political leanings rather than actual law. Get the picture?

[Yosemitest]

"And your credentials are ... ???

You refuse to answer this question? Very interesting. I can only ASSUME you have no credentials.

And the book Liberty & Tyranny, I read about 5 books since that one.
I'll have to listen to my cd version again while I drive around.
That's the problem with age, you start to forget things, and diabetes doesn't help.

[patlin]

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Citing repealed legislation just adds to the level of your ignorance in the subject matter at hand. You underlined "the children" as if that means all children, Well let me help you out by using the Supreme Court & the Justice who wrote the WKA decision:

OK, now that we have traced the history and found out that nothing had changed regarding children born to aliens on US soil since the time of the adoption of the US Constitution to the ratification of the 14th, we can now return to the 14th. Using the precedent set forth in all previous legislation pertaining to US citizenship and the legal document that gave it its force that was cited & upheld by the Supreme Court in both the Minor & Elk cases, let's see what the paths to US citizenship are? Are there really only 2? YES!

All persons ... Chief Justice Waite in 1874:

The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... again Chief Justice Waite in 1874:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Then 10 yrs later Gray upholds the ruling of the court written by Chief Justice Waite as it pertains to the paths to Us citizenship as it stands under the 14th Amendment:

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized

[patlin]

"And your credentials are ... ???...I'll have to listen to my cd version again while I drive around

Listening while driving does not equate yo actually studying which requires reading all the sources that Mark cites and they are numerous! Furthermore, what has credentials got to with with interpreting our Constitution? Mark cites many unaccredited sources, but had you actually read the book and looked up the sources you would've know that, thus you wouldn't come across as one of ignorance.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, founder of Harvard Law School:

In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/liberal-conservatism-a-bane-to-the-survival-of-a-constitutional-republic/

One doesn't need to be educated by biased professors, legal or otherwise, in order to learn. One just needs the brains & the self determination to seek the truth from those that actually wrote the truth. Anyone who thinks they have to get the answers from others is well, just plain intellectually lazy which is the opposite of what it means to be a patriotic American.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Follow the Adventures of Gary the Snail!

Become a Monthly Donor
To End the FReepathons
Sponsoring donors will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor

[edge919]

The law says that a person born in U.S. territory of parents who are not "under foreign jurisdiction" (not diplomats, foreign military at war with the U.S., etc.) are citizens by birth, and the law does not distinguish between "citizen by birth" and "natural-born".

The Supreme Court makes the distinction. It says one term is defined by the Constitution while the other is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution:

NBC: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Citizenship by birth: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."

NBC, the court said is being born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Citizenship by birth is defined by the birth clause of the 14th amendment: Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... with the latter half being defined as having parents who have domicil and permanent residence, such as had Wong Kim Ark:

... whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States ...

[Yosemitest]

And you position on Barack Hussein Obama II and his eligibility is ????

"what has credentials got to with with interpreting our Constitution? "

Well, a lot actually.
Me, research is not too difficult, but law isn't my expertise.
I still trust the people I trust. And they're the ones who say Rubio's eligible, and I believe them.
Birth in this country, is the main way may illegals gain access to this country, hence the term "anchor babies". And after a person has been naturalized, they're a citizen.

Why are you so afraid to state your credentials?