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

  • Donna, no one, at least not me, is denying that Rubio is a citizen of the United States. No one is saying they don't think he is a good American. Heck, my grandfather was an immigrant and a great American who sent two sons off to war but HE WAS NOT HIMSELF A NBC although his sons were since at the time of their birth he had attained US citizenship and had married an American citizen who happened to have been born here.

    The issue is: does Rubio qualify as an American citizen...YES, HE DOES. Does he qualify as a natural born citizen eligible to be president? NO, HE DOES NOT!

  • I can just see now the debate and talking points should Rubio be nominated by the GOP in 2016.

    They will be bringing up the exact same points many of us conservative are doing now only now we are trying to thwart the issue from ever arising. Yes, Rubio is supposedly a conservative; lets accept he is. I am not that sure myself especially when his immigration ideas do not sound very conservative to me.

    And if you object to Obama, whose mother was born here, then why should you not object to another whose mother and father were not born here and they still held un-renounced citizenship in another country when he was born?

    Fact is he is not a natural born no matter what criteria we might accept even from some of the wackoes. He was born to foreign nationals who were not US citizens at the time of his birth and in fact did not even bother with US citizenship until four years after Rubio's birth even though they like many of the Cuban immigrants had the option to do so long before.

    Do we rip up the page of the constitution's eligibility clause to suit one candidate and glue it back together to satisfy another?

    Ark as well as Happersett were declared CITIZENS but that did not eliminate the clause in our constitution whereas it separates citizen from natural born as eligible requirements to be president. I so wish people would stop using those cases as if they dealt with the issue of natural born. They do not!

  • Oh by all means, play into the hands of the left by doing all you can to nit pick a brilliant conservative and try to obliterate him from any future endeavors.....the left knows you/conservatives will jump all over it like a pack of dogs jumping on an injured member of its pack.

    So where is the fight when our constitution is being made irrelevant by the out of control Hitler wanna be??????????????????  Talk is cheap.

  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark
    Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued March 5, 8, 1897 Decided March 28, 1898
    Full case name United States v. Wong Kim Ark
    Citations 169 U.S. 649 (more)
    18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890
    Prior history Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California; 71 F. 382
    Holding
    Children born in the United States generally acquire United States citizenship at birth via the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Court membership
    Case opinions
    Majority Gray, joined by Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, Peckham
    Dissent Fuller, joined by Harlan
    McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
    Laws applied
    U.S. Const. amend. XIV

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that virtually everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

    Wong Kim Ark DOESN"T SETTLE the question of NATURAL BORN... it ruled children under the 'jurisdiction' of the US, born in the United States are US Citizens.  It is commonly held that there are three methods by which one may be granted US Citizenship. 1) Native Born.. based on jurisdiction and place of birth (us soil).  2) Naturalized... based on legal immigration and naturalization 3) Natural Born... based on blood or being born of TWO US Citizens.  The latter being the Constitutional requirement to be president.

    Wong Kim Ark makes the case that all children of legal immigrants (those under the jurisdiction of the US) excluding temporary visitors and members of the consulates of foreign powers, who are born in the US are entitled to be Citizens... it makes no other claims.

    The recent revisiting of past Court decisions including Wong Kim and the Slaughter house cases are frequently viewed with a biased interpretation and 'cherry picked' to support various views regarding ones political disposition regarding the controversy over Pres. Obama's eligibility issues.  However, it is clear that there exist sufficient disagreement among Constitutional Lawyers and legal professionals regarding the original intent and Constitutional meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen'.

    Hence, Congress should act to clarify the meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen', once and for all... There exist sufficient concern among many citizens regarding Pres. Obama's legal right to claim Constitutional eligibility to serve as President.  It is also clear that CONGRESS... should hold hearings... determine the facts surrounding these eligibility issues and the meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen', a finding in the form of a Congressional Resolution. This would clear up both Pres. Obama's eligibility and the DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN... once and for all.

    In my opinion this would be the honorable and most direct way to settle all the arguments over the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen' and President Obama's  eligibility issues.  However, both Congress and the President, have not called for such hearings.  It is within Pres. Obama's right too ask for hearings on this matter and it would be the honorable way to proceed... for his own Presidency and for future arguments that arise concerning eligibility under the 'Natural Born Citizen' clause of the Constitution.

    To all those here who make various arguments... I would say, we are all patriots with concerns over the proper application of the Constitution. This matter is a very serious issue and one that deserves the greatest care and deliberation.  Therefore, let us all call on CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT to promptly settle this matter, by conducting public hearings on the issues, addressing the facts and arguments of all parties.  Let Congress be charged with arriving at a decision and once decided pass a CONGRESSIONAL RESSOLUTION which settles all arguments over the meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen' and President Obama's eligibility issues.

    Until then the arguments will continue to fester...

  • What amazes me is that this subject is still going.  Rubio is more of an America loving, patriotic, focused person than anything we have had on our conservative side since the founding fathers.

    Are we going to eat him or nurture him and be grateful that he is on the side of our country????

    And if anchor babies are citizens, why is he not??????????????  Its a cottage industry of massive proportions funneling pregnant illegals into our hospitals to pop out new little American citizens, right????????

    And what happens with chain migration....?  Are they citizens?  Or only the recently born offspring of an illegal.

    This is deplorable.

  • Rick Bulow , As one great Legal US President said " There you go Again " spouting you Alinsky BS . The trouble is there are to many American citizen that know the truth for you BS to stick . So go peddle you snake oil somewhere else .
  • The constitution is not a game although you and Rick seem to treat it as such.

    Did you not take note of your comrades statement that parentage does not count, only the fact of where a person is born?

    To take your argument one step further might I suggest that many of the founders were adamently opposed to the possibility of a person with duel citizenship becoming president and in fact gave explicit reasons. Seems to me if a child is born to parents who convey their own foreign citizenship upon the child directly or indirectly then that child is a duel citizen. That would affect not only Obama but Rubio, whose parents were both Cuban citizens at the time of his birth.

    You replied to question #1 and I countered. How about something other than a 'No' to questions #2 and 2b?

    Since Rick classed anyone born on American soil a NBC I would assume since you two make basically the same ridiculous argument you might be willing to take up his claim that ANYONE born on American soil is NBC no matter the parentage.

  • And you sir are either a infliltrator of conservative causes or worse, a socialist/progressive/communist who would aid and abet in the destruction of our Constitutional Law and its result: OUR REPUBLIC.

    ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR FOREVER BE KNOWN BY ME AND OTHERS A MORON.

  • For the last time, let me debunk your argument with a FACT which was stated in that Miami article you posted.

    If Marco Robio was born to parents who themselves STILL held CUBAN citizenship, which by international law is conveyed to the children, and retained that citizenship for four years after Rubio was born, then how is Marco or any other born to NON-CITIZENS, even if in the US legally, ever to be thought of as 'Natural Born'?

    At the time of his birth he enjoyed the conveyance of citizenship only because he was born on American soil. That law is in and of itself a travesty and one that needs to be rescinded for the favor of citizenship under that idiocy is conveyed to children of illegal aliens.....invaders.

  • So true Bob! And until I get answers to my questions I will refuse to go further in this discussion.

This reply was deleted.