Rubio Is The Republican Obama

With the recent endorsement of Fla. Senator Marco Rubio by the National TEA Party to be the possible running mate for the Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney  I feel like I’m watching a bad b-rated TV series’ second season.  In the first season the supposed villain does an unforgivable act that increases his villain credibility.  But, now the second season is previewing a supposed hero who presents basically the same unforgivable disposition that made the villainous character in the previous season the villain, yet he is the one to save the day so everyone is acting like the 3 monkeys – hear no evil,see no evil , and by all means speak no evil.

The main issue regarding Mr. Obama, that of many, that has dogged him since taking the seat of U.S president is not whether or not he was or was not born in Hawaii truly, but whether or not both of his parents were themselves U.S Citizens; therefore qualifying or dis-qualifying him to be president, constitutionally that is.  Though there is no doubt of Obama’s mother’s national status of being American, the same most certainly cannot be said of his paternal father.  It is greatly believed that Obama, Sr. was either a British Citizen, by Kenya before it gained its independence; but definitely not a citizen of the United States.  This is why the issue of Junior’s Birth Certificate has been such an critical persistent 4 yearlong issue of major importance.  It’s not just a question of Constitutional integrity, but one of principle and honesty at our nation’s highest levels.

But here comes the Establishment Media’s pick for the Republican savior as number two man on the presidential ticket, Marco Rubio.  But if the Republican Party hopes to show themselves as the party of integrity it will look in another direction.  Because according to WND.com’s May 22, 2011 issues, Now popular Republicans ‘not natural-born citizens‘, like Mr. Obama, both of his parents were not U.S Citizens at the time of his birth neither.  But too, like with Obama, neither the Media nor any one of the elite political complex seem to be overtly disturb by the fact.  Or maybe they are waiting for Rubio to become officially the V.P to be, maybe.

Like in the case of Obama’s birth, it is not like no one was there when he was born.  There was the doctor, or hospital employee, and the mother.  The information is out there.  It’s just that for some inexplicable reason both the Establishment Media and the elite political complex seem to be jointly complicity derelict regarding the crucial matter of these two presidential candidate’s qualifications, being a  Constitutionally mandated “natural-born citizens”, of not just Obama, but Rubio, as well as another potential V.P candidate Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jinda who too was born onto non-U.S citizen parents.  Regarding Marco Rubio, according to WND,  has not released his birth certificate for view by the public, and  what is even more incredible his press secretary Alex Burgos has already admitted that the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971, not naturalized citizens of the U.S. His parents didn’t become naturalized U.S. citizens until four years later.  Mr. Jindal’s press secretary Kyle Plotkin too has publically admitted “that both of his parents were permanent legal residents and not naturalized U.S citizens at the time of his birth”.

There is a clear distinction between a natural-born citizen, one who is born of two U.S Citizen, and a naturalized citizen, one who is granted citizenship by the government of the United States by fulfilling a requirement, such as being born on U.S soil or by passing a test for citizenship. It is largely understood by Constitutionalist that the Founders never intended for someone of possible dual allegiances to a foreign power to become the President of the United States.  Doesn’t that make sense?

The Founders being such learned Biblical individuals it should come as no surprise that Deuteronomy 17:15 speaks of choosing a leader, “you shall surely set a king over you …, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.”  Mr. Obama’s actions regarding America’s world standing and position has been unprecedented for a U.S president, in an extraordinary bizarre way.  His actions may be understood better if viewed from a position of someone with confused or conflicting loyalty regarding a nation that he boastfully promised to “fundamentally transform”.  He has acted with indifference to longstanding allies, such as Israel and Britain, and has acted vindictively towards nations that didn’t present any threat to America, such as, Egypt and Libya, while literally and figuratively bowing to traditional enemies and entities who act in opposition to American interests, such as Communist China, Russia, Venezuela, Hamas, via the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran. And I didn’t even include what extremely destructive economic and social actions he has taken domestically, such as immediately piling trillions of debt on the citizens of the United States, via Obamacare, financial reform act, his antagonistic posture with States regarding oil and gas exploration and development, the invasion of illegal immigration of Mexicans, and traditional American religious view on homosexuality.

Given that we have viewed this presentation with stunned amazement to the fact that this is actually happening and are now looking forward to the end of this grueling 4 yearlong series, do we look forward to a possible recasting of a similar plot this time with someone with possible dual allegiances only centimeters from the presidential seat? Are we not a nation of laws? And if we the people choose to allow exceptions at the highest levels of our government to the most fundamental tenants of our laws, are we not placing ourselves and posterity on a slippery slope toward tyranny and anarchy? The choice is ours to whether or not do an unforgivable act, to settle for a rerun.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
tednugent
Guest
tednugent

There is nothing in the constitution or in the meaning of Natural Born Citizen that bars dual citizens from being president, and there is nothing that bars the US-born children of foreigners (one or even two) from being president. The meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth. “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible… Read more »

Third-eye Opened Project
Guest

First let me say that I really appreciate you taking the time to read my blog. But, with all due respect sir, just going by the article by WND.com, there is a distinction between a natural-born and naturalized U.S citizen. There are a lot of things that are not specifically stated in the Constitution that are interpreted, i.e the “separation between church and state”, yet acted upon as though it is. The intent must be examined. Would the Founders wanted to allow someone of possible dual allegiances to be president as they knew too well how it divided kings and… Read more »

ehancock
Guest
ehancock

A week has passed since Sheriff Joe’s press conference and nothing has happened. Not a thing. There have been no members of congress calling for an investigation. Conservative columnists such as Ann Coulter have not demanded action. Senator John McCain, of Arizona, has just commented in mocking terms about the Sheriff. The Conservative Republican secretary of state of Arizona who saw Hawaii’s latest confirmation and accepted it as evidence and put Obama on the state ballot has not reversed himself and said that he believes the Sheriff. What could be the reason. Are they all part of an enormous plot?… Read more »

tednugent
Guest
tednugent

Re: “Would the Founders wanted to allow someone of possible dual allegiances to be president as they knew too well how it divided kings and queens who were not of the same nation? ” Perhaps you did not know but Jefferson and Madison were dual citizens when they were president—having been made full voting (with the right to serve in the government) citizens of France by the French Assembly during the French Revolution. And Woodrow Wilson and some say Eisenhower and Grant were dual citizens at birth. Wilson because although his mother became a US citizen when she married his… Read more »

Third-eye Opened Project
Guest

Thanks for the knowledge Mr. Nugent. But lets excuse those from the early part of our nation’s history simply because it was to be expected that one may be a citizen of Briton or France particularly prior to America becoming a nation. As well as excuse the mothers who became U.S citizens upon marrying a U.S citizen prior to the birth of the soon-to-be president, as well as if one’s grandparents or such were foreign citizens, because we are just talking about the parents status at the time of the child’s birth. Plus some may argue that it is the… Read more »

ehancock
Guest
ehancock

Re: “s not the fact that Mr. O has spent so much time, energy, and money, as reported by WND and others, to keep some much of his past unknown to the public..” That is all made up by WND. Obama has shown his birth certificate twice, and it has been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, and by the Index Data and by the birth notices that were sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961. Since there has never been a lawsuit just for information, or just for documents or just for school or… Read more »

Third-eye Opened Project
Guest

Since you made the accusation that WND made up the stories regarding Obama deception and the MILLIONS that he has spent concealing his past-prove it! and yes the voters will decide this November, but would help if they were totally informed about the man who has been the president for nearly 4 yrs and now wants to be for another 4 more.

ehancock
Guest
ehancock

Okay. (1) You cannot spend money defending a lawsuit if there is no lawsuit. (2) There were lawsuits against Obama to get him off of ballots, and that is what he spent money on (a LITTLE because it doesn’t cost very much to get cases thrown out of court when the plaintiffs lack standing, and you can use the same boilerplate in every case) (3) So Obama spent some money defending lawsuits to get him off of the ballot. (2) He did not spend any money defending lawsuits for his papers, since there were no lawsuits for his papers. He… Read more »

Third-eye Opened Project
Guest

With all do respect, you seem to have a fixation regarding Mr. O’s birth certificate issue. Which is fine with me; If you can state where I mentioned anything about his b.c having to do with Mr. O as I stated, “not the fact that Mr. O has spent so much time, energy, and money, as reported by WND and others, to keep some much of his past unknown to the public…”. I was clearly referring to not what I have stated, but what not just the WND, but others who can present references and sources, unlike you sir, such… Read more »

ehancock
Guest
ehancock

All that you have cited are columns, and not one of them shows a FACT. Some repeat the lie that “he spent millions,” but they do not show where they got the figures from, nor do they cite a single lawsuit that was just for documents or just for the birth certificate. Without such a case there is evidence that Obama fought to be on the ballot, but no evidence that he fought to hide anything. To be sure Obama’s autobiography is misleading. Have you ever known an autobiography of a politician or a candidate or a campaign biography to… Read more »

ehancock
Guest
ehancock

As for motives and such, that is what voters determine in a presidential election. We were discussing ELIGIBILITY. Since the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth, not to the parents, Rubio, Jindal and Obama (who was born in Hawaii) are all Natural Born Citizens.

ehancock
Guest
ehancock

Re: “But lets excuse those from the early part of our nation’s history simply because it was to be expected that one may be a citizen of Briton or France..” No problem. But we actually had experience with a president who had TWO foreign parents, Andrew Jackson. Was he disloyal? Obviously not. So, if we do not believe that having foreign parents makes a person disloyal, what makes you think that the writers of the US Constitution did either? To be sure, if they had actually SAID that they worried about the US-born children of foreigners perhaps not being as… Read more »

million hits secret bonus
Guest

The guidelines you shared here are extremely priceless. Rrt had been such a pleasurable surprise to have that looking forward to me after i woke up now. They are constantly to the point and simple to understand. Thanks a ton for the innovative ideas you have shared in this article.

http://www.hotsunglasses.ru/ray-ban-sunglasses-00101.html
Guest

nice post,it is useful to me and others,please just keep it on….