Senator Marco Rubio, please stand up!

By J.B. Williams
January 20, 2013

If so-called “constitutionalists” were better acquainted with the Constitution (Charters of Freedom), they
would not be supporting Marco Rubio for an office he is not eligible to hold and they would have already removed Barack Hussein Obama from the office he currently holds fraudulently. Marco Rubio is in the unique position to solve our nation’s greatest problem, to remove a foreign agent currently assaulting America from within the Oval Office and set the nation back on a constitutional course towards freedom and liberty. Rubio has an opportunity to be a true American hero. Will he be?

Because Rubio was dragged into the political spotlight by Tea Party folks in desperate search of new conservative leadership, and because he shares in common with Obama, constitutional ineligibility for the
offices of president and vice president under Article II requirements, he is uniquely positioned to bring down the most anti-American regime to ever hold political power in the United States.

Unlike “birthers” who are trying to disqualify Obama on the basis of his unconfirmed place of birth (native born
status), which is still in question due to Obama’s fraudulent efforts to hide his real past and true identity, using nondisclosure and forged documents to remain a total mystery, -- true “constitutionalists” who have studied the matter completely and allowed the facts to emerge without partisan purpose, know the whole truth.

1) The foundations for America are stated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Pay particular attention to the parts highlighted.

CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Contrary to contemporary teachings by revisionists, the legal precepts for everything our Founders created is NOT "British common law" which we separated from via the Declaration and the American Revolution. It is "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as stated in the preamble to our nation’s founding document, The Declaration. Just as freedom and liberty are “natural rights” inalienable by men, so is the right of Natural Born Citizenship.

2) Revisionists claim that Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution. However, the US Constitution does not have a definitions section; therefore, it provides no definition for any of the words or terms used in that document. Of course, as the Charters of Freedom were written in plain simple English so that any citizen could read and comprehend their rights and the limited functions of the government bodies they were to form, no definitions were needed. Everyone alive at the time knew the true meaning of every word and every term, including Natural Born Citizen. But 236 years later, dumbed down by revisionist propaganda, Americans may have to do a little homework to rediscover basic truths.

3) During that period in history, the framing of the Charters of Freedom, our Founders left a perfect record of their concerns and intents in the Federalist Papers. Anyone not able to comprehend the simple English carefully crafted in the Charters of Freedom can study the thoughts behind those words in the Federalist
Papers. If you do not know the Federalists Papers, you do not know the Constitution.

4) There is no guess-work or ambiguity… We know from reading the correspondences of our Founders, that they borrowed the concepts for the Charters of Freedom (Natural Law - Laws of Nature - God's Law - inalienable Law of Nations) -- from the internationally recognized authority on the subject at the time, Vattel, recorded in French and later translated to English, The Law of Nations, written on the inalienable laws of nature respected by all nations and inescapable by man. [Most of the Founding Fathers were as fluent in French as they were
English.] Included, was the term Natural Born Citizen, a citizen by the laws of nature, not the laws of man, in fact, inalienable by the laws of man.

In Vattel's Law of Nations, he defines the term Natural Born Citizen, not in one sentence, but in several sections, 211 – 233 of Book One. One truly seeking the truth about our Charters of Freedom and Natural Born Citizenship should read the entire Law of Nations, it is a brilliant work on Natural Law and it is in fact the cornerstone of the Charters of Freedom created by our Founders.

But in short, Vattel defines Natural Born Citizen as follow;

NOTE: "Birthers" mistakenly (or intentionally) cherry-pick a single sentence from several sections on the subject, discarding all else, including the actual definition. - "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - This is NOT the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It is only a general statement affirming that natives are born in country and naturals are born of citizen parents.

Vattel goes on to define Natural Born Citizen and the reasoning behind it...

* "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."

** "The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

*** "I say, that, 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."

This is why Barack Hussein Obama is a total fraud, constitutionally ineligible for office. Unfortunately, so is Marco Rubio, among others.

If Marco Rubio is the great “American Son” he portrays himself to be, the great young constitutionally conservative leader that so many Tea Party folks hope that he is, he must take a stand for the U.S. Constitution
and America right now, as only he can do. Because many of his loyal followers have such high hopes for his political future, Marco Rubio can secure that future by taking the stand that only he is positioned to take right

Unless and until so-called "constitutionalists" get Article II right, they can forget every right they think they have....because if Article II does not exist in force or affect, neither does any other part of those founding
documents that protect the Natural Rights of all American citizens.

I call upon Marco Rubio to stand and become the great leader he wants to be, the leader so many believe him to be. I call upon Marco Rubio to stand and tell ALL Americans that he is ineligible for the offices of president and vice president, as the natural born son of a Father who was a citizen of Cuba (not the United States) at the time of his birth.

Man-made statutes generously gave Rubio and many others like him, American citizenship, via the 14th Amendment, our immigration and naturalization amendment governing the citizenship rights of immigrants through naturalization, or native born rights.

Rubio is a citizen of the United States by way of man-made laws, not Natural Law. Likewise, no matter whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, his natural birth Father was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama’s Father could not confer to Barack Hussein Obama II that which he did not possess, U.S. Citizenship.

Marco Rubio can solve this entire issue and much more. He can stop Obama’s Marxist march off the cliff and save the country he claims to care about deeply, as well as freedom and liberty in America. He can do so by standing up before the nation and the world, proclaiming himself ineligible for high office and demanding that Barack Hussein Obama be immediately removed from office and charged with high treason for the most horrific fraud ever perpetrated on the American public and the world.

If Rubio refuses to do so, he is NOT what so many had hoped. He will be nothing more than just another political fraud seeking personal gain at the expense of the U.S. Charters of Freedom and the future of freedom and liberty, not just here, but throughout the free world.

If Article II no longer matters, nothing in the Charters of Freedom matters anymore. I call upon Marco Rubio to take a stand and end this nightmare. Stand and tell the people the truth Mr. Rubio, or become just another disappointment to the people, pandering to the captive Tea Party audience but no less complicit in the massive

DO IT NOW… Before a second fraudulent inauguration!

I have sent this call for action directly to Marco Rubio and I call upon you to do the same.

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a
twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is
co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at:

Views: 1359


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Diane Logan on January 31, 2013 at 8:24am

Me thinks my excellent cookies might well taste a bit sour if accompanied by your kool-aid.

Comment by Diane Logan on January 31, 2013 at 1:31am

Rick, that is exactly the put up liberal FAT.

Your blogs and liberal buddies media idiocy do not and never will replace the CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A RUPUBLIC WHICH MOST OF YOU SEEM TO DISCARD.

Comment by Diane Logan on January 30, 2013 at 4:52pm

What name calling, Rick. Am I incorrect in referring to you as a lib much in line with others who visit this forum and make an unconstitutional argument and use other libs blogs and/or lib network morons like Matthews as support material? I asked you and Larry only three very simply questions but was deluged with a ridiculous number of non-constitutional links in return that give support to the unraveling of our constitution.  

FACT: Obama holds duel citizenship at the least.

FACT: Rubio held duel citizenship at birth.

FACT: Neither is constitutionally eligible to be president or vice-president. PERIOD!

FACT: There is a clear distinction qualifying the requirement for president: 'natural born' as opposed in the same section to 'citizen'. What part of that do you NOT understand?

I have been contacted by others privately , none of whom argue in your behalf. I am now at the end of my rope and for me to go further would just be feeding your thirst for attention, illiterate as it seems to be in your support for Rubio and any other who would be in mimicry of the usurper Obama.


I will eat my cookies and let you two go to enjoy your kool-aid.

Comment by Diane Logan on January 30, 2013 at 3:41pm

I asked three simple questions: #1 and question #2 and 2b. You responded to #1 and ignored the other two. Who is being evasive is my question?

I do not, unlike you and the lib Rick, make an argument in tune with blogs and MSNBC idiots in order to support my position. The constitution is not something to be applied uniformly; it is designed to protect and affirm actual citizens, not visitors or invaders. DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT YET?

Comment by Diane Logan on January 30, 2013 at 1:42pm

Larry, Obama IS NOT  a natural born citizen even if he was born here. His father when Barrack was born was a British citizen (Kenya being a British protectorate) and therefore Barrack himself, even if born on American soil, is a duel citizen and that in itself declares him a non natural born; no different in fact than Rubio. When living in Indonesia Obama was even listed in school as an Indonesian citizen by his grandfather and registered as a Muslim. And that I suspect is how Obama got his Fulbright scholarship since that is only granted to foreign born.

A nut is someone who is confused to the point they do not know or can even suggest why the founders only once in the constitution declared the DIFFERENCE between citizen and a natural born citizen if the meaning was the same.

Larry I suspect you and Rick are the type, like many others, who would spit into the wind and get it back in your face and argue that what happened meant the wind was at fault and not yourself.

Poor Paul, have you not yet learned that an amnesty program is only meant to satisfy the masses and in no way should prevent other law breakers from crossing the border. Reagan learned this lesson and was duped just like we are being duped today.

Comment by Paul Z. on January 30, 2013 at 12:15pm

You need to ask your Reps. & Obama what they intend to do with those that sneak in Illegally AFTER another Amnesty is passed?  In 5 years, there will be Millions more Illegals that will be "living-in-the-shadows."  Then we will be discussing yet another Amnesty.  ENFORCEMENT, a Fully secure Border with 2-layer fence that can't be taken down easily by future Congresses or Administrations, and mandatory E-verity, FIRST...............

Comment by Diane Logan on January 30, 2013 at 10:26am

OMG, now the hate label is being attached to what I see as rational comments by a contributor in this forum. Sounds almost a mimicry of the gays who use the 'hate' attack as a means to deny rightful opposition.

Comment by Diane Logan on January 30, 2013 at 10:21am

Larry, the cookies will have to wait until I get more ingredients than the nuts I have already collected from those donations in this forum.

Comment by Diane Logan on January 30, 2013 at 10:19am

Opposing Rubio's status on his conservatism is not the point. To claim that it does leads to nothing but weave the discussion off that which JB William's said which is the focus of this post. Will Rubio give voice to the fact that Obama is ineligible to be president or will he continue to ignore it?

I suspect he would not respond since he too is ineligible and for that to be addressed especially by him would open up a can of worms he is not prepared to address.

Is Rubio actually a conservative? I would agree on many matters he may well be but on the issue of his support for illegals I would claim NOT. Would a conservative wish to ignore an amendment of the constitution and avoid any mention of the qualifications for eligibility to be president especially since his name keeps popping up even in conservative forums such as this one, NO!

One cannot be a conservative if he picks and chooses the sections of the constitution that he considers as valid. It is the whole of the constitution that protects this nation, not bits and pieces of it that may favor one group or another.

Ron has every right to repeat himself since those of you in opposition bring up the same invalid points to contest his facts and assertions. When you folks stop repeating your continuing support for invalid eligibility then I would suppose Ron might not need to repeat himself. Say you?

Comment by Ronald A. Nelson Col.USA (Ret) on January 29, 2013 at 6:23pm


You ask where's the Amnesty? Did you actually listen to Sen Rubio's interview? Amnesty by any name, remains  Amnesty.  Sen. Rubio's plan calls for a path way to citizenship... via the issue of a 'new immigration status'. A new 'work permit' which allows the illegal alien who turns himself in, pays a fine and files his taxes... too avoid deportation and or prosecution for violating our immigration law and host of other crimes: ID and Social Security fraud too name two.

What I heard Rubio say... was that he supported an 'eventual' path to citizenship for the OVER 11 million illegal aliens in the US. Now there isn't much difference between 'a pathway to citizenship' and an eventual path to citizenship... and Amnesty by any other name remains Amnesty.  I also heard him use the LEFTIST term 'UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT' several times.  These criminals are neither immigrants or documented... they are illegal aliens.  Terms like undocumented alien are designed to desensitize us to the criminal activity these individuals are willing to undertake to access our society. 

I have listen to Sen. Rubio for sometime now regarding his position on illegal immigration.  He has changed the SPIN but not his underlying position on amnesty.  ANY bill that permits11-20 million illegal aliens to remain in this country is an AMNESTY Bill. The present immigration law requires these criminals to be deported. It doesn't allow them to stay in the US. There are over 600,000 deportation orders waiting to be enforced right now... Will these criminal aliens be granted amnesty by Rubio... unless there is a specific provision to keep these deportation orders valid they may be allowed to remain in the US.

Sen. Rubio's conduct is less than sterling regarding this matter... He knows the American people will not support a bill with any form of amnesty' so he spins a yarn too obfuscate the amnesty in his proposal.  Sen. Rubio is rapidly on the way to loosing any respect I held for him.  I simply don't trust politicians that treat the people like fools... telling them that Amnesty is not Amnesty. 

Next, Rubio expects America to believe that by allowing the current batch of Criminals to stay... it will discourage the next batch, from breeching our laws. He can not even guarantee that the current administration or those that follow will provide America with secure BORDERS.   

Sen. Rubio claims it's not amnesty...  that the UNDOCUMENTED immigrant will pay a fine and must file back taxes before he gets his new status (work permit).  B/S how will he guarantee that 11 million illegals if fined will pay their fines.  As for taxes Sen. Rubio knows that illegals are using false SSN's, or are paid in cash. Just how will he determine their taxable income. His proposal allows them to apply for certain federal benefits and to be eligible for Social Security. Finally, if they don't pay or file their taxes who will enforce any penalty and what are the penalties... Deportation? Weren't we told there are too many of them to deport.

Sen. Rubio, knows that low income wage earners with dependents DON"T PAY TAXES.  He knows they get HUGH earned income credits... refunds. If the illegal now legal immigrant has already filed taxes and gotten a check from the government... what's to keep them from doing it again under his new and legal social security number? These so called undocumented immigrants have proven they are criminals capable of tax and ID fraud; what's to keep them from filing again and getting another earned income credit check from the government? These criminals won't pay into our tax system... they will draw a check from it.

All in all Sen. Rubio would be much better off asking the President to enforce the present laws before offering to rewrite the old laws... and granting Amnesty to another waive of criminals aliens.


The cartoonist's homepage,


Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.


Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service