Skip to comments.Rubio, Amnesty and Article II
Posted on 04/28/2012 7:40:56 AM PDT by IbJensen
I realize that many Tea Party folks have fallen for leftist tricks aimed at keeping the current Article II constitutional crisis off the campaign table, but just how far are they willing to fall in the name of political agendas?
Real constitutionalists are as concerned about Article II as they are any other constitutional text, maybe even more so since the current Muslim-n-Chief is a one-man constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. Faux constitutionalists are those who cherry-pick which parts of the founding document to take issue with, or make up new meanings for old words, all based on their individual political agenda.
Many Tea Party folks seem to not care whether or not we uphold Article II constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice President. Others seem perfectly happy to accept fraudulent definitions of the term Natural Born Citizen so long as it suits their political agenda. In both cases, our founding principles and values take a back seat to political expedience.
However, there is a reason why members of congress tried to alter the Natural Born Citizen requirement at least eight times in the run-up to Obamas fraudulent election in 2008 why leftists insist that the founders meant anchor baby when they required that only Natural Born Citizens of the United States could hold the highest offices in our land and that Marco Rubio would make the perfect VP selection for Mitt Romney in 2012 .
In short, the reason is -- kill the constitution and AMNESTY by any means.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is without any reasonable doubt, a total fraud, and ineligible for the office he currently holds. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and neither is Marco Rubio.
So, to keep Obama in office, leftists must eliminate the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen and the best way to do that is to get Republicans to put their own ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket with Romney enter Marco Rubio, who otherwise has a very weak résumé.
Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen via the bloodline of the natural birth father. Obamas natural birth father was never a legal citizen of the United States. He was at all times a legal citizen of Kenya and as such, he could only pass Kenyan citizenship to his offspring, Barack Hussein Obama II.
Likewise, Marco Rubios father was a legal citizen of Cuba at the time of Marcos birth, and he could only pass Cuban citizenship to Marco. Marco Rubio was therefore, born a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba, living abroad in exile in the United States. Rubios parents did not become U.S. citizens for several years after Marcos birth.
In contrast, Mitt Romney was born in Detroit a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as the son of a natural birth father (Gov. George Romney) who was at the time of Mitts birth, a legal citizen of the United States able to transfer Natural Born Citizenship via the Laws of Nature.
Even as confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 99-0 unanimous vote, John McCain is also a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, born abroad in Panama to a legal U.S. Citizen father. This proves that all Senators know the true definition of Natural Born Citizen and that they knowingly and willingly refuse to apply that standard to Barack Hussein Obama or Marco Rubio.
We know why leftists who have tried to alter or abolish the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement for years would want Marco Rubio, RNC leader for illegal amnesty, to appear on the GOP ticket in 2012 --- but why do many Tea Party and GOP voters want Rubio on the ticket?
First, placing Rubio on the GOP ticket would galvanize the fraud of 2008 when America seated its first non-Natural Born Citizen in the Oval Office. Second, Hispanic immigrant Rubio is leading the charge for illegal amnesty in the GOP -- a position allegedly opposed by Tea Party and patriotic type voters.
How is Rubio being shoved down the throat of pro-American voters? --- The why is obvious, once you understand our current dilemma Who is voting this November?
USA Demographics White Anglo-American 64.9% Hispanic 15.1% African-American 12.9% Asian 4.4% Other 3%
Now pay close attention .
The longstanding gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year, according to an analysis released Thursday. Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record. The New York Times reported in April 2009.
If 50% of white Anglo-American voters stay home or vote a 3rd option of any sort in protest, guess who has a voting majority in America today? These folks seldom pass up an opportunity to vote themselves gifts from your wallet
People forever seeking to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and change America into something it was never intended to be, are showing up to VOTE in increasing numbers -- just as frustrated White Anglo-American voters stay home in increasing numbers. Their conscience will allow the re-election of the first anti-American and illegal White House resident. What kind of conscience is that?
African-Americans are no longer the second largest voting bloc in America. They have been replaced by Hispanics over the last several years, over half of which are in the Unites States illegally. Now they are able to vote thanks to insane moto-voter and no ID required voting laws put in place to make fraudulent illegal alien votes legal throughout most of the U.S. Its unconstitutional, immoral, unethical and even treasonous but they found a way to make it defacto-legal.
In many states, lawmakers foolishly passed laws to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and then passed laws requiring only a photo ID, such as a drivers license, in order to vote in U.S. elections. The illegal alien vote is now equal to the legal citizen vote, even before formal amnesty is a reality. Dead people can vote, why not illegal aliens?
And since the Hispanic community is growing by leaps and bounds, pouring across our southern border like a stampede of young peaceniks headed to the next Woodstock, politicians feel obligated to pander for that vote even if they have to offend every legal citizen doing it.
The DNC wants Marco Rubio on the 2012 GOP ticket to forever eliminate the Natural Born Citizen requirement for high office. But the RNC wants him on the ticket too, in order to pander for the 15.1% Hispanic Amnesty vote that will otherwise go to Barack Hussein Obama in November.
If Americans allow Rubio to appear on the GOP ticket, Article II requirements for high office are forever gone and amnesty is a sure deal.
I get why RNC and DNC inside the beltway scumbags want this, but why are Tea Party folks foolish enough to go along with it?
Maybe its time to ask who these Tea Party folks really are?
Translation: I’m running away.
If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots Robert Kiyosaki
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain
Hint...Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,"...
Lect. 25: Of Aliens and Natives
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.
So from whence did Minor v. Happersett draw it's definition of natives?
We know they were, because they mentioned Naturalization in Article I Section 8 Clause 4.
Naturalized citizens become We The People after they are naturalized, and then once naturalized, but not before, their posterity are citizen children.
If resident aliens have children here before they become naturalized, then those children's (who are dual citizens who claim birthright in the United States but also inherit the citizenship of their parents) children will become natural born citizens, but they themselves will not.
That's why I think that the SCOTUS was wrong in Minor v. Happersett when they said they had to look elsewhere for the definition of "natural born citizen." That definition is right there in the Preamble as I've just shown.
The Preamble sets the context of the rest of the Constitution, namely to preserve the country for its citizens and their citizen children.
It is the asserter that must prove his assertion. How can you prove something that didn’t happen? This is fun?
Positive law, not natural law.
IbJensen is absolutely right.
In what manner?
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript Idee sur le gouvernment et la royauté, is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.
Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.
Why do you call yourself an idiot and a fool?
You are entitled to and I respect your opinion. We can all talk about this until we are blue in the face but the fact is it is what it is. The framers were probably concerned by the Jay letter of a usurper taking control of the presidency. Perhaps that is why the committee of eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen.” They certainly didn’t elaborate on it and it remains a mystery.
What isn’t a mystery to me is, and I would bet every dime I own on this, an anchor baby will one day run for President, and there will not be a court in the land that will stop him. I don’t like it but there it is unless the Supreme Court takes a stand and actually defines NBC.
Well we never had Open Borders Ted Kennedy and Motor Voter, and No ID to vote. The NBC issue to me is a simple one based on common sense, but that will never fly in this thread. Suffice to say it is only a means to an end in attempt to prove that every document produced ha been a fraud, and further the leadership in both parties knew them to be fraudulent. Which either makes them incredibly stupid or complicit, I chose the latter.
If a person is born on US Soil is he NBC? Logic from your answer to that simple question would lead to definitions of the other 4 possibilities. You don't need the Supreme Court to tell you that. What we do need is a single State Attorney General and an honest judge (that in itself may be impossible)to ask for proof of citizenship before placing Zero on the ballot, that could lead to discovery and the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the people of the United States may begin to unravel. In the end I doubt it will really matter because the New Improved version is on deck.
Ignore my #46. I understand your position clearer now.
On that we agree 100%, in fact I would go a step further and say that it has alread happened and not one court has ruled on the merits of the challenge. You are Physic or something.
These little distractions are just that, the real battle is literally for control of the world, is is just that we as a sort or religious Republic are in the way. Remove us and, well the NWO seems like the solution to the chaos that will follow. Do you think that the UN is here by accident?
Franklin acknowledged the receipt of the Law of Nations and he wrote a very nice thank you note. I don’t see the connection.
No you don't I just said I found nothing in post 1 that I didn't agree with. If you disagree then say so. My very first post on this thread stated that his post would bring out hundreds of pages of court decisions and precedent positions all of which would lead no where. Arguing with lawyers is about a sane as trying to argue with a Berkley Communist.
The only hope on this subject is to somehow get the argument into an honest court, to look at the fraudulent documents that have been presented to create the unknown president that we have.
I really don't understand all the support here for the status quo, unless there really is no concern for the preservation of the Republic.
Obummer did provide proof. It was a forgery but it was his proof. In it was stated that his father was not a citizen of this country. NOT ONE SINGLE AUTHORITY pointed out that his father must be a U.S. citizen in order for him to be qualified. That is why I say we need a definitive definition of CBC and that must be issued by the Supremes somehow.
What would have stopped his mother from putting a U.S. citizens name on the document? People lie. Hospitals are not qualified to determine the truth. Anyone can say anything and get a valid birth certificate for their child.
You say we need an honest judge. I completely agree. When one finally does show up the case will try to make its way up to the Supreme Court and it will be cut off by some liberal appelate court. This is an unwinnable situation.
“There are two classes of citizens in this country”
“Classes” Actually your choice of words is poor, because a naturalized citizen is equal to a native born citizen in every way that matters. This was by design, so that a naturalized citizen would not be a “second class” citizen.
There are two TYPES of citizens in this country.
Native born (citizen at birth) relying on your birth status
Naturalized (citizen by statute) relying on a law
A “Natural Born Citizen” is not a different type of citizen. They are Native born citizens with additional requirements should they run for president (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution)
OR Vice president (Article. XII)
Cry as you will, these are the facts., PERIOD!
No you don't I just said I found nothing in post 1 that I didn't agree with.
Yes, I do. You've stated much more than just that you found nothing in post 1 that you didn't agree with as is evidenced in your reply 50 alone.
The NBC issue to me is a simple one based on common sense, but that will never fly in this thread. Suffice to say it is only a means to an end in attempt to prove that every document produced ha been a fraud, and further the leadership in both parties knew them to be fraudulent. Which either makes them incredibly stupid or complicit, I chose the latter.
The more you say (type) the clearer what you think and believe becomes.
I think the NWO is firmly in place and we are the last to fall. I know both Bush’s are part of it along with Gore, McShame, Kerry, Clinton, Romney and I suspect Obummer’s trying to get in. They are all against us and I don’t know what to do. My fear is that it is already too late.
I apologize. I didn’t mean class in that sense. Type or category is a better word. Thanks for the pick-up. Believe me, serving in the military for 20 years I know what a second class citizen is - we lived it. Things are better now as I understand it.