Skip to comments.VP hopeful Marco Rubio's Mormon past revealed as it emerges he was baptized LDS at 8-years-old
Posted on 02/23/2012 12:40:00 PM PST by wrrock
New revelations that Republican rising star Senator Marco Rubio was a Mormon as a child may create a major obstacle for his political future.
Viewed by many as a likely- and popular- vice presidential candidate in the upcoming elections, the admission that Mr Rubio was an active and enthusiastic Mormon from ages 8 to 13 may hinder his chances because of the negative connotation many conservatives have with the religion.
And, if Mitt Romney- who is arguably the countrys best known Mormon- wins the nomination, Mr Rubios chances of being put on the ticket are slashed even further.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I live in Florida. Yes, Rubio did not endorse anyone, but when he ran for the senate he had Mitt Romney’s picture prominently displayed even larger than his own on the front of his website. He has spoken glowingly of Romney often here. I don’t recall him speaking about any of the other candidates running in the same way so, forgive me if I mention his Romney love.
Perhaps it’s just because stealth RINOs like to stick together.
“Romney certainly gets a lot of grief for being a Mormon, so if he’s the RINO you’re talking about, you’re wrong.”
Please point me to some MSM articles that go after Romney based on his ‘religion’.
Yeah, looks like it is pile-on Rubio night on FR.
in re: LAUGHED out of court within minutes
Plain fact of the matter is that the SCOTUS has absolutely dodged this issue, along with every other black-robed bumkisser before whom the strange and wonderful cases have arrived.
What is a "Natural Born Citizen?" The SCOTUS owes us a definition about now, instead of allowing the Mombasa MF and his advocates to settle it without benefit of adjudication. If a court actually hears the case on the issue and then laughs it out, OK-PJ.... then, I'm buying.
Until that happy, or sad, day. The issue hangs like a cloud over this administration and the country. This remains a valid constitutional question.
Rubio’s parents were NOT American Citizens when he was born. He is NOT a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the ONLY SCOTUS Ruling to ever define the term.
It REQUIRES two parents who are American Citizens and being born on American soil in order to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen eligible for POTUS and VP BOTH.
STOP trial ballooning an unconstitutional candidate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It makes us no better than Obamalamadingdong!
Well said as always Spaulding!
That’s right, and Rubio is a Naturalized citizen, by means of the 14th Amendment. A Natural Born Citizen is one which needs NO statute to provide citizenship status because both that persons parents were citizens at the time of his birth in the United States or it’s territory.
Rubio’s parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth, so his citizenship claims comes from the 14th Amendment, not from the condition of his birth.
(1)Team Obama, with the help of WND, Taitz, et al, has managed to turn this very real Constitutional matter into the "Birth Certificate" charade, adroitly shifting focus from the real to the surreal. If Obama is not paying these people, he ought to be.
(2) The Constitutional case is absolutely unique, giving courts, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS, ample opportunity to shuck and jive their administrative way around it. With no firm precedent upon which to actually opine, that could mean taking some sort of definitive stand on the actual matter. Heaven forfend!
(3)Obviously, no court in the land wants to be on record as opining on the eligibility of a sitting President to actually be sitting! (,i>especially after they swore the SOB in!) They pray that this cup may pass from them.
It is particularly galling to those many millions of us who want an answer on the issue to be dismissed ... as if this was res judicata. ... and that we are a bunch of silly moos for asking what is, I repeat ..again ... a legitimate question.
However Danae, it is just not our job to extrapolate from Minor vs. H, or the 14th Amendment. It is a job for the SCOTUS. It is ultimately their job to interpret the Constitution as the final court of appeal in the land.
The obstacle here is, as Justice Thomas, Alito, and Scalia have so heavily hinted, is that the SCOTUS wants no part of the issue, and has grasped any straw to avoid hearing a case on the issue.
Sadly, neither does it seem that any state AG wants a piece of the action. This is a massive case of national insanity. It won't go away until some part of the judiciary, legislature, or state officials act. So far, no good.
I agree Kenny. I understand their reasoning. Challenging it...DEALING with it brings us literally to the brink of dissolution of the Union. No joke. I don’t blame them for being cowards, I blame them for CHOOSING to act like cowards.
On their souls be it.
Lutherans....very fine people also! My wife was a Lutheran, and met some of the nicest people, all her relatives from Sweden & Norway.
Just today you have this controversy about NY Times columnist Charles Blow tweeting about "magic underwear." It's not in the paper, but it does reflect how they think.
During the 2008 campaign The New Republic featured articles critical of Romney and Mormonism in politics. Newsweek's brought up the whole "baptism of the dead" thing, and you'll hear more about it from them if Romney gets the nomination.
Right now the media doesn't have to attack Romney or Mormons. If they just repeat what other people say about them, it has the same effect. But you'll see them take the gloves off if Romney is the nominee.
And of course, the mainstream media is only part of today's media landscape. Maybe not the most important part. So you have to take all sources into account.
"With no firm precedent upon which to actually opine, that could mean taking some sort of definitive stand on the actual matter. Heaven forfend!"
"With no firm precedent upon which to actually opine, that could mean taking some sort of definitive stand on the actual matter. Heaven forfend!"
(1)I almost agree with your first point Mr. Bunk. Joe Farah, and Jerome Corsi are bright guys. While one can guess at their reasons, they run a tabloid which aims at many whom they must assume will not take the time to read any of the original sources. They live by selling tabloids, both print and on-line. One could imagine that they served the purpose of Chester Arthur's newspaper friend, Hinman, who wrote a book presumably questioning Arthur's place of birth, but really created a distraction from Arthur's real problem, a British/Irish father.
I don't agree with your characterization of Orly Taitz, who clarified the common law definition of natural born citizenship in 2008, when Berg, almost certainly an early Obot, was pumping the tabloid propaganda - agitprop. Taitz knows she hasn't the legal background do battle with the best obfuscators money can buy. She is doing what she can with what verifiable facts were not completely sanitized by what appears to have been very careful and thorough preparation. No one addresses the many social security numbers and no one has penetrated the mystery of the probably fictional history of Obama, but she is pursuing it like no one else. Her facts seem likely to have validity, and may become important if post 2012 legal action to correct the actions of an ineligible officer, and thus illegal contracts, is pursued. It seems quite probable, that if Obama were not commanding the justice department, that following the trail of identities he has left will reveal a story we can only guess at. Guessing may not be necessary, if the judiciary were independent, but we now see the truth. With the Congress, we can impeach judges who have demonstrated their perfidy.
The facts remain that the man who “cauterized” Obama’s state department files, who worked for Obama’s CIA guy, Brennan, was assassinated after becoming a cooperative witness. The employees of the College Testing Corporation were sued and silenced lest they have seen anything about which they might talk openly. No Republican said a word, except Condeleeza Rice, who apologized for the breach of the State Department files.
<2)Your claim that there is “no firm precedent,” obviously an opinion, but, with the many citations to Minor v. Happersett, it isn't clear how you arrived at it. I see no logical explanations but that Minor established precedent. It did not refer to dictum. There was no other class of citizen defined than that of natural born citizen by the Constitution for the period between the ratification and the 14th Amendment. Without precedent, the construction of the decision rested upon nothing. The dozens of citations to Minor, including that by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, would mean nothing.
The sad truth about precedence, as Leo Donofrio explained, and I finally understood, is that the court can do most anything it wants. There is no requirement in the Constitution to recognize precedence. The result, however, is what we are seeing, the erosion of respect for our legal system. Every provision we have taken for granted is now up for reinterpretation by an activist court, which, with two appointees who were actively involved politically with Obama and his cadre, will achieve the packed court that FDR.
That no court in the land has the allegiance to the Constitution to explain the reason for ignoring the Constitution, and our Military has accepted a Commander in Chief born to an alien father who hated our form of government shows how dire is our status as a representative republic. This is the time, before we face complete economic collapse, possible EMP attack from Iran whose leaders Barack has tacitly supported, along with hundreds of terror attacks by a crazed Islamist regime, executed by tens of thousands of warriors who have come across our borders, or some who are native born citizens of the U.S. as Barack has told us he is. He has said, I'm not a natural born citizen, but I'm the boss because I got the votes, and no one believes in your Constitution enough to do anything about it.
(3)The issue of Barack’s ineligibility was used as a weapon to further weaken our trust of our basis in laws, and not men. You, Mr. Bunk, are suggesting that honoring our Constitution has become a liability. You suggest that it is a lost cause. If you just ignore this provision this time, we can vote him out and worry about eligibility next time around. No. Having decided that this time it wasn't important, when it obviously was - had both parties not colluded to permit two ineligible candidates, we wouldn't have been in the vulnerable mess we are in today. I won't ever forget what our framers provided as a protection against having someone with no allegiance to our Constitution, which makes our republic what it is. Barack, you notice, has no parents left whose allegiance can explain the destruction he is wrecking. His presumed parents would have been proud, if we are to believe Bill Ayers. But had we honored the Constitution, a Constitution, before you repeat the shibbolith, which does not contain defintions, and was written to depend upon our common-law, not Blackston's common law, and our common language for its definitions, we would not be facing the crisis which a Marxist, not natural born, has has planned for us.
In re Your (my) claim that there is no firm precedent, obviously an opinion, but, with the many citations to Minor v. Happersett, it isn't clear how you arrived at it. I see no logical explanations...
I was being very .. overly ... literal. There has been no case challenging a President's citizenship and eligibility ... except perhaps some state actions taken against Calero, who was a Nicaraguan citizen at the time! Minor etc. were not dealing with people running for office. Yes, if cited they deal with Natural Born Citizenship, but somewhat tangentially for our purposes.
I admit that I have been very suspicious about Dr. Orly, even while sneakily admiring her pluck. The reason is that she has handed Team Obama a string of easy victories due to a lot of, IMHO, just plain bad work. When resources were offered, she refused. When sympathetic judges instructed, she abused them. Where I am most suspicious is about HER seeming obtuseness .... and her husband's .... connections.
But that's me. I cannot understand why we politically concerned animals often neglect to investigate what Mr. Pelosi, Mr. Feinstein, Mr. Boxer, Mr. Collins, et al are up to while their wives occupy center stage. Ditto Dr. Orly's husband. But, thanks to you, I'll try to open my mind a little. Let's see how she does in Hawaii.
In regard to "Where's The Birth Certificate?" This was merely a straw man set up for Team Obama to demolish. They have issued a series of documents, spurious to be sure*, but apparently good enough to to be accepted by every Attorney General in the land as proof of eligibility to run for President. But Leo is correct. .... "the court can do most anything it wants.
*Team Obama has never presented certified copies of an actual Birth Certificate. What they have digitally created are abstracts of data allegedly "on file" at the Hawaii Department of Health ... but as I have said, that is apparently good enough.
Many FR contributors have read Rules For Radicals. Most of it is a prologue to his chapter on tactics, but what has been done to Taitz could have come right out of his book. No doubt she never studied the law to do much more than pass The Bar, and enable her to better run her dentistry and real estate businesses. Her spelling is easy to ridicule, but doesn't betray a very good mind, a fact of which I'm reminded by my wife, whose native language is not English, but who writes novels, in English, and whose spelling is a frequent source of amusement. Taitz doesn't have that cool invulnerability, the master of the world demeanor that is often seen in big time trial lawyers.
Her husband has never been an issue, or in any discussion I've seen, but were he technically astute, the mess made by several crooks of her web site would never have happened. When she first filed suit in California, and the Justice Department didn't respond, it is my understanding that legally, she was entitled to discovery. When the federal judge, Carter, described as a retired Marine officer, approached her as a friend, asking her to let Justice get its act together, and he promised to grant discovery after granting a new date for pre-trial hearing several months later. Apparently, she was naive. How could she have known that he had spent some years in the Middle East, on State Department assignment to teach their lawyers about our legal system. She had no way of knowing that just before his decision was due, the firm defending Obama, Bob Bauer's law firm, would supply a clerk to Carter, (this is from memory) who was Pakistani, educated in Eastern Europe, at a law school with mysterious credentials. We had already seen prosecutions of people who might provide documentation about who Obama is, where he is from, or details about his parents. Taitz grew up in a country where this was the norm, Moldavia, and a city known for some of the most vicious Pogroms before WWII, and for continued antisemitism after.
I'll reveal an encounter when I was a child with Hungarian athletes who chose not to return home after the Olympic games when their country was invaded. It took me decades to understand why the solemnity of those meetings (beginning an athletic club in my area). I wondered how they could have left the home of their parents. This is what Taitz sees happening to the country in which she bore three children. She is ferocious because she knows the helpless feeling of living under tyranny, and further, of being a Jew, meaning that when things go bad, her tribe usually gets the blame. She is attacking with the tools she knows, and the people she has found. She is also learning, as are we all, how corrupt our government has become, and how little respect our legal system has for our Constitution.
We think we know that Clarence Thomas knows, but is helpless given the makeup of the court. We can easily read into the mysterious meeting at the Supreme Court with Obama immediately after the election, that some agreement was made. We can read into Justice Robert's difficulty in administering the oath to a liar whom he knew to be ineligible, a man who publicly described his disagreement with the Constitution he would presumabley swear to obey, defend and protect, that he had qualms. We should wonder if this Obama's are the usual political lies, or Taquia? We know that Justice Ginsberg and others wouldn't hesitate to make up the law, or find penumbra, to protect the left’s emissary.
Nothing will be investigated unless we own both houses, convincingly, and unless rinos are frightened enough to stand out of the way. The other path, one which seems almost inevitable in California, is complete financial collapse, which will eventually yield to those who actually produce things - though it could take decades, by which time the Chinese, as they already are Greece's largest port, may be running Long Beach, our largest container port. They almost do today.
The spoiled bureaucrats whose talents have been dedicated to regulation, who justify their existences by telling other people how to run their lives, like the $180,000/year protectors of the environment at the California EPA who distributed carcinogens to over 120,000 fresh water wells in California by imposing a gasoline additive, MTBA, against the scientific evidence from many other nations, are a perfect example. None of them were prosecuted. The state has spent billions of dollars, not including the twenty cents for each gallon of gasoline that added to the State's tax “revenue”, stealing from the productive people who are now leaving. And those wells will not be usable for the foreseeable future.
I think we agree, except that I see Orly, with all her Eastern European drama, as a heroine. She is not a Ted Olson, who betrayed the law by colluding with whiner plagiarist Larry Tribe to help obscure McCain's technical ineligibility. He participated in a lie by implication, by omission of the complete retraction of the Naturalization Act of 1790 from their letter on McCain's behalf, knowing full well the definition of a natural born citizen - if not the stare decisis of Minor, then the Common Law stated by John Marshall and Bingham and Gray and Hughes. But Olson, whose lovely first wife would have exposed the conspiracy had she survived 9/11, plays with the big boys, for whom power is truth. We will never know what he has gained by playing with the catch me if you can Obama team, but we know he lacks integrity. Taitz gets emotional, and is passionate, but she is trying to protect us because this is the last potentially safe home for her family. And, while she, like many, has hoped the lack of legitimate birth certificate had traction, her exposure of the dozens of social security numbers seems an issue that would require investigation in a nation of laws. Now we are a nation of men - men who have accustomed citizens to their flaunting the law, ignoring subpoenas, using the remarkable claim, that no one has standing because we are all being injured. We have Supreme Court decisions which describe when the court must hear a case, and in which only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. But that body of ethical and, if we agree with the Declaration, moral laws based upon natural law, principles is no longer relevant, unless our sovereign deems it - and he clearly doesn't.