Posted on 07/31/2012 5:21:31 PM PDT by Red Steel
-snip-
Although he could be an asset to Mitt Romney, irregularities in the Florida senator's record would make him a fat target for Democrats.
-snip-
Overlooked in this is Rubio's big Achilles' heel: his record. Not his legislative record -- though Democrats would surely take great pains to paint him as an extremist, he tends to be in the mainstream of the GOP -- but his political and lifestyle ones. Those areas will give opponents plenty to work with. There's no single smoking gun -- the lone revelation that would make him unviable. Instead, his record raises a series of smaller questions that would add up to many potential headaches for a campaign headed into a tough election against an incumbent president. The case for Rubio is well known, but here's a quick rundown on his potential vulnerabilities.
-snip-
7. He Also Has Close Connections With Jim Greer. Greer is the embattled former chair of the Florida GOP, and as a prominent Florida Republican, Rubio naturally worked alongside him. The bad news: Greer has been charged with fraud and money-laundering. Worse: Greer is furious at party leaders and is thought to be sitting on damaging information about the party and its officials. Worst: He is set to go on trial in late July, on the eve of the Republican National Convention -- which is being held in Tampa.
-snip-
9. His Record Has Several Other Irregularities. Rubio has already faced questions about his official biography. Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia revealed that contrary to prior claims, Rubio's parents came to the United States from Cuba before, rather than after, the Cuban Revolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
On behalf of the 34 other people who are left agreeing with us, I thank you. We have been betrayed by the courts and the GOP.
The gist of that article was how the Russian brand of Communism and her growing empire was here to stay and that the United States needed to reconcile ourselves to that fact.
At the time, Galbraith was considered the economic guru of the left and even intellectually superior to Milton Friedman, the most prominent voice on the right in my field.
In 1875, U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was presented with a query from the Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. A young man, surnamed Steinkauler (his first name was never mentioned), had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen. When he was four years old, his father returned to Germany with him and both had stayed there ever since. The father has relinquished his American citizenship. Now the young man is 20 years old and about to be drafted into the German army. What is this young man's situation as a native-born American citizen? After studying the relevant legal authorities, Pierrepont wrote:Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. .... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that "natural born citizen" refers to someone who was a citizen "naturally", ie they were not "naturalized". This covers anyone born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Should their parents not be US citizens at the time of their birth, they may have dual citizenship, but they ARE natural born citizens. While I would like there to be a requirement that both parents must be citizens AND that they be born on US soil, such a requirement does NOT exist in the constitution.
Out of extreme and curmudgeonly xenophobia, I refuse to believe that the offspring of illegal aliens are "Natural Born Citizens" of the US. They are citizens of their parents' country. Steinkauler was indeed a natural born citizen, because both of his parents were citizens. That could not be removed from him. Mamá (or Mutti, as the case may be) having been automatically naturalized in those days when Papá was.
What is needed here is a ruling from the balck-robed bumkissers club whom we pay dearly for their opinions, aka The SCOTUS. If they agree with you, I'm buying, and of course, vice-versa.
Perhaps you will join me in urging them to define the classes of citizenship after the Resident Recumbent is driven from public housing, along with Aunt Zeituni and Uncle Onyanyo.
Why did they expressly choose a Natural Born citizen instead of any other flavor?
What is the purest citizenship one can have? Which form doesn't have any allegience or fealty, legal or otherwise, to any other nation but one?
Only Natural Born, born in country to two citizen parents, has that quality of citizenship, by birthright, not by law or treaty, and passes the purity test.
Ours was a newly formed nation, just barely standing, with many foreign enemies, not just England. For the single most powerful human in our government, with 1/3 of the total US power at his control, our FFs wanted loyalty to America alone, from birth. Only one class of citizenship offers that potential.
It's not as hard as people try to make it. If you were writing the standard for the new nation, you would choose for citizenship, eligibility with the highest quality, the most loyalty, the legally most pure citizenship for the single most powerful office in the nation.
Only one fills those requirements and you would not do with lower quality. Why would you go with less?
Yes, we have been betrayed, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to living up to that "oath thing" from my youth.
Besides, the betrayal is so widespread, just being proudly Constitutional will seem like a new fad at some point and likely will catch on.
The pendulum has to swing the other way sooner or later and I think politically it's a bit overdue. Here we are on the cutting edge.
Oh, how I’d love to see Allen West as the VP pick. Heck, I’d love to see him as the President. Does anyone know if he’s even on Romney’s short list? I doubt it since West is a staunch conservative. But, what an exciting pick it would be.
The Atlantic has always been left and now is very left. JKG was the darling of the left and really not a very good economist. Give me Hayek or Friedman any day
Oh I would be so thrilled but like you I figure West is way to conservative for the GOP establishment
Both your sentences are 100% correct.
Stand by your guns Crusher. There are a lot of idiots trolling this website who make up laws to suit their agenda. They cannot produce the law that says NBC requires citizen parents so their only strategy is to belittle those who stand behind the Constitution AS WRITTEN. Reason escapes them because even an idiot should understand that natural means not naturalized by law.
True, but he was still a way better economist than Paul Krugman, who is the current darling of the left.
Krugman....bleeech. He isn’t even a hack writer. His so called knowledge of economics defies logic
I’ve been a Rubio supporter from the beginning, but I read the litany of things the Dems can use against him and even though he said many of them were “errors” and corrected them with repayments, etc..... It’s just too much. Glad this came out now instead of after he was selected for the VP spot.
Stay in the Senate Marco and do a good job, this is not your time.
I love Allen West and would love to see him as VP. And, what I getting ready to say now is “racist”, but..... I’ve had more than one person tell me that “after Barack Obama” they will NOT vote for any Black man. And, I must say, Herman Cain and his philandering with white women, did not help the Black Conservative cause. (Re: Cain: If you’re innocent, you stand and fight and face your accusers. You don’t run like a scaled dog. Would he have done the same thing, i.e. quit the race, if he’d been accused of being a Homosexual??? I think not!!! So, what does that tell you?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.