Senator Marco Rubio, please stand up!


RUBIO MUST DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM HIGH OFFICE.
By J.B. Williams

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams234.htm
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.

IN
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
now.

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
fraud.

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: jb.uspu@gmail.com

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comments

  • I just wish those who make claim that simply because someone is born on American soil they fit the separate distinction as stated in the constitution between a 'Natural Born Citizen' and 'Citizen' as it applies to eligibility to serve as president. And someone please further explain why the founders inserted that particular phrase if citizen and natural born have the same meaning?

    Yes Donna, anchor babies are citizens. I disagree they should be since born to illegals but the law wrongly has decided in favor of that usurption.

    Rubio's parents were here LEGALLY, although not citizens, when he was born so therefore he IS a US citizen but NOT 'natural born'. Being a 'national' or born of the soil does not in and of itself equate with the intended meaning of the founders as to 'Natural Born'. They understood the distinction between 'natural born' and 'citizen' or might they have had dementia on the day that section was inserted and not used in any other part of the constitution but only in clarifying the requirement to be president?

    During the Constitutional Convention those attending even referred to Vattel's treatise many times. In fact most of those at that convention were examining the laws of many nations to which they might apply to the final draft of our constitution. They were working not from a single model but from many and were clearly guided by their good points as well as the bad. Vattel was considered one of the best at the time.

    Larry, your reproduced text does address 'citizen' but not the issue of natural born. You make an assumption without merit and limit your argument to the Constitution (good) and to English Common Law (bad, since that alone was not the whole of the founders considerations). The USC was simply a clarification of existing law. It does not and cannot erase sections of the Constitution or the intent of the founders. There is that, and then there an assumption of law.

    And might you people stop calling what Obama presented as proof of birth a 'Birth Certificate'. It was not! What was presented TWICE was a 'Certificate of Live Birth' which can be applied for by anyone, even someone who was never connected to the birth. Heck, it has even been found some Chinese who never stepped on US soil were issued a 'Certificate of Live Birth'. But that is not the issue here but since addressed I think the real document should be addressed and not some facsimile of birth.

  • "Anchor babies" born here are citizens......which needs to change but imo Rubios status is that of an American born citizen.

  • Rick Bulow , Keep telling that lie and maybe someone will believe it . But anyone with two sense to rub together knows you are an Obot using Alinsky tactics . Lie and lie some more and maybe someone will believe you . Again the definition for Natural Born Citizen is one born to two that's 2 US citizen parents on US soil . And the five year old you are talking is yourself . So do yourself a favor and put down the obama kool Aid and take a drink of reality you boy the fraud and usurper barack hussein obama is going down and there is nothing you can do about it .
  • The real problem lies with Obama who by fraud got into the office of President and it opened the door for more individuals to attempt the same illegal means of running for that office.  As long as we let Obama get away with this fraud the worse it will become in the future.  It gives anyone the right to run for the highest office in our country therefore another Hitler could run. There has to be regulations for that immensely  high position which is fairly similar to a king as far as rank.  He must have a pure record of qualifications and the ability to make sound judgements and have experience to back up his knowledge of holding that position. He can not withhold anything about himself,  including education, health, religion, personal life styles, experience and family matters. He has to be an open book to the people to prove he is worthy of the position. In layman terms, he has to be a trust worthy, righteous upholding citizen who has never broke the law in any way.  When we accept less than that, we may as well pick someone from the ghetto or who has been in a mental institution.  

  • Why do so many want to complicate a law with words which do not even apply? The simple truth gets so twisted by words that soon no one knows what they are even talking about. To be a citizen of the United States is so simple, it does not require a doctorate degree to understand for even a 5th grade student would get it.  Get this, or try real hard!  A citizen of the United States is one who is born from a mother and father who are already a citizen of the United States, period!  Nothing more, nothing less, it is like the kiss method, "keep it simple stupid". Stop the Insanity for God's sake!

  • Well said Paul...

    I too am leary of overnight fame... I am also concerned over Sen. Rubio's views on 'immigration'  they certainly betray any conservative application of the Constitution and existing law on the matter.  In fact, his proposals are nothing more than reworded amnesty.

    I do like Sen. Rubio's positions on the economy and budget... however these are also subject to change and or verification by his actual votes on such matters.  I can see Sen. Rubio playing an important roll in the Senate but I don't see him as a viable candidate for President... he is not Constitutionally qualified and I can not compromise my position regarding following the Constitution to the letter.

  • Mrs. Logan,  I am glad you put up this Post.  The disregard for our Constitution is growing and that is why I am afraid of having Sen. Rubio run for President. While he may be Conservative on many issues, (as far as we know because we really don't know much about him), his stance on "immigration" (trespassing) would just twist our Constitution some more.  The 14th. Amendment was NEVER intended to give Citizenship to Illegal trespassers or children of Illegal trespassers just by being born on American soil.  Marco Rubio has already made compromising statements on the Dream Act, and actually working with ultra Liberal Rep. Luis Guiterrez on Amnesty proposals. 

    My belief is that the 14th. Amendment is for Citizenship requirements, but Article ll, section 1, shows the requirements for Presidential qualifications.  I hope Sen. Rubio responds to your questions. I myself had phoned his office several times about his "immigration" policies.  I wish Congress would separate the term Immigration from Illegally Trespassing instead of always lumping it together.

  • Paul Z, to repeat what I had previously stated...how is it then that an illegal alien who gives birth on American soil, to wit: an anchor baby, is automatically an American citizen by law?

    I made no claim on the eligibility of a baby born of non-American citizens, born on foreign soil, as being American citizens. That would not have any connection to my argument on 'natural born' or 'citizen'. One needs NOT be born of American citizens to be themselves American citizens; they would of course not be natural born citizens is my contention.

    Yes Paul, I would agree with you on the point of illegal trespassers. Personally I am one who would call an illegal alien just that and not smooth it over with a label such as 'undocumented immigrant' which many on the left prefer to call them.

    Perhaps you and LarryM might share notes on what is legal and what is not. I and many others seem to be hitting the brick wall of ignorance in our argument on who is a natural born citizen and its separation from that of citizen. I do wish the founders had provided a glossary of each and every word and work they drafted in our constitution.

  • Larry, you are most definitely on the wrong track to say, 'that child would MOST DEFINITELY NOT have any standing as a US citizen because 1) the child's parents have not rejected their birth countries citizenship and 2) they have returned the child to their native country to be raised as a citizen of that country." In your analysis then an anchor baby has no standing as an American citizen.

  • LarryM, I will get back to you, with my research notes.  But I'm in the middle of 2 other projects right now.  I did all of my research on this in 2008.  I have it, but can't recall all of the back up pertinents off -hand.  My State starts their new session next Fri. for this year. We have 100 days/year, so I have to hit the ground running.  I'll save this thread link, and will get back to you some time this weekend. 

    Notice the back and forth on this thread? Personally, I love it.  Five years ago, you could hardly find anyone talking about the Constitution much less Federalist Papers, et al.

    I hope that all concerned keep this a courteous debate.  Debate is healthy.  One of my newest pet peeves, which I have had to ask some of my Lib friends is "When did it get so angry and hostile? We're  all AMERICANS first.  We used to be able to have discussions without all of the personal temper tantrums (from both sides)

    Just the length of this thread is encouraging.  I don't know how old any of you all may be, but I hope to see at some point soon, my young adult daughters and their contemporaries talking about the CONSTITUTION!!  Luv it!!  Be back later

This reply was deleted.