"The appearance here, is that the GOP is committed to losing, just like 2008 with McCain, who they knew GOP voters would never support. Romney had an uphill battle to attract GOP voters to begin with, but all the talk about placing an unconstitutional candidate on the ticket smells like a forfeit..."
Penned By J.B. Williams
July 23, 2012
Back in June, I published a column demonstrating just how difficult it will be to unseat Obama in the 2012 election. In short, Obama will win a minimum of twenty states no matter what and those twenty states represent 242 of the 270 Electoral College votes Obama needs to win re-election. Obama is only one state away from winning at the starting gate, and that state is most likely Florida.
Romney could win twenty-nine of the fifty states and still lose the election. The states in his column at the start of the 2012 race represent only 146 Electoral votes, at best. He has a long way to go to victory.
But the game could end in August at the GOP Convention.
Led by Republican news site Newsmax, a growing number of Republican talking heads across the airwaves and blogosphere are promoting Marco Rubio for Vice Presidential running mate.
93% of Newsmax participants would vote for Romney if the election were held today, according to poll results, demonstrating a very solid Republican demographic in the poll and a party unifying against Barack Obama.
The rest of the poll results are unbelievable…
Knowing very well that Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, but rather an immigrant-citizen from Cuba, ineligible for the office of Vice President, 67% of Newsmax readers chose Marco Rubio for VP running mate.
According to the XII Amendment ratified in 1804 – “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” – and according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States is eligible for the office of President.
Many of the Republicans voting in this poll have opposed Barack Obama’s unconstitutional administration for the last four years. But they appear to have no trouble nominating their own unconstitutional VP running mate to run against Barack Obama.
According to the Newsmax poll results, 89% believe that placing an unconstitutional VP on the ticket with Romney will help Romney defeat Barack Obama in the general election. Newsmax placed fourteen potential VP choices on their ballot, only two of which are not eligible for the office of Vice President or President, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, both born to foreign parents living in the U.S., a condition often referred to as anchor baby.
In addition, Marco Rubio is well on record supporting many Democrat agenda items opposed by most Republicans, including amnesty for millions of illegal aliens living in America in direct violation of our immigration and naturalization laws.
This might explain the gap between those who think Rubio might help Romney win (89%) and those willing to support Rubio (67%), a significant 22 point gap indicating that some of these folks will not vote for Rubio, even though they believe he could help Romney win.
This 22% could represent the number of participants who like Rubio and want Romney to win, but also understand that Rubio isn’t even eligible for the job.
As Florida promises to be a key state for both Romney and Obama, it isn’t hard to see the political strategy behind promoting the young and popular freshman Senator from Florida for VP. But will placing a confirmed unconstitutional candidate like Rubio on the ticket with Romney help or hurt Romney’s chances in November?
The fact is it will hurt Romney’s chances even in August at the GOP Convention, where Ron Paul and Rick Santorum aim to upset the convention, gathering a storm of Convention Delegates opposed to Romney due to his past constitutional indiscretions.
Placing Rubio or any other unconstitutional candidate on the ticket with Romney will most likely end any serious Romney challenge to Barack Obama. I would read such a move as a forfeit of the race by strategic suicide.
It would also end any political future for the promising Marco Rubio.
Florida won the heated 2000 contest for Bush and the 2008 contest for Obama. Florida is a huge gamble in 2012, not because of Florida’s large Hispanic community, but because of Florida’s even bigger retiree community.
It wasn’t Hispanics or even college age kids foolishly voting for change who elected Obama in 2008, it was senior citizens, retirees and as those retirees vote, so goes Florida.
More than any other issue, the Charters of Freedom are center stage in the 2012 election. If voters are presented with two equally unconstitutional choices, Obama will win re-election by default. He has twenty states and 246 Electoral votes in his column at the starting gate.
Romney will have to make his VP choice very carefully or he can end his campaign in August. Obama has demonstrated a total disregard for the Charters of Freedom and if Romney does the same thing by choosing an equally unconstitutional running mate, the people will not support that ticket in Florida or anywhere else.
The 67% of Republican Newsmax readers need to see both Rubio and Newsmax for what they really are… I’m not trying to hurt Rubio, I’m trying to save Romney and thereby, hope for our country.
If Rubio is the real hero American Son many believe him to be, he must immediately and publicly disqualify himself for the office of Vice President and then challenge Barack Hussein Obama on the same basis.
If Rubio is unwilling to do so, he is not the hero many seem willing to bet their future upon. Romney cannot defeat Obama with a ticket just as unconstitutional as Obama. Here’s where the rubber meets the road folks.
© 2012 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.
Rubio is mentioned by ALL the major "news media" quite often as a potential VP candidate. EVERY time I hear it, it makes me angry. It has been out there REPEATEDLY that Rubio is not eligible and yet he is still mentioned OFTEN. How can we get people to understant that he is not (and some others that are mentioned are not) eligible ???
Bruce I posted this column on FB on my Republican Party State Leaderships pages. I'm not sure how else to get people to understand and be concerned about the importance of this. The blind are sleep walking telling us to wake up. It's weird and discouraging.
Even on FOX and in major polls quite a few who would not be eligible are still listed or mentioned. We ALSO need to get someone to do something about all the lack of verifiable information about BO. We actually know less about the person sitting in the office of POTUS than just about anyone else in public life.
If any normal citizen had so many questionable documents out there --- they would be in jail.
Romney should say he will release more tax returns when BO opens up all his records that can be documented and verified.
I've been saying this from the first! 2 wrongs do not make a right! He is not a natrural born citizen and has no business being nominated! This is what happens when the birther issue is ignored and poo pooed by the conservative media! Rubio is NOT a conservative! He is doing his own version of the dream act for illegals, this is NOT what a conservative would do!!! Since Romney is NOT a conservative, he needs a true conservative for vice president!
It is a dark time for America. The bottom line is you cannot win in a fixed game and the preponderance of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are in on the fix. Without a major shakeup in our system of government, returning us to the mandates inherent in the original Constitution, the downhill slide will accelerate.
Okay, so Marco Rubio is a native born of a non U.S. Citizen, we understand. Now apply this same mentality to the bho, who was also born to a non U.S. Citizen, and no matter where he was born, Kenya, Hawaii, or under a stump in a Mississippi swamp, the fact remains he was not eligible. Please get this info to the rest of the nation, as you are preaching to the choir.
Not entirely to the choir here, as you can see by Kate's effort to spread the lies regurgitated at American Thinker and Heritage Foundation. There are some here who still need preaching of truth.
But you are right about your end message, and who better than Marco Rubio to put the real NBC issue front and center in the national spotlight?
Sen. Marco Rubio 317 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC, 20510 - Phone: 202-224-3041
Don't worry, dear readers -- be happy. The good news for us is that Sen. Marco Rubio is eligible to be elected president in 2012. And so are Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley. There's been a lot of attention devoted to the original meaning of "natural born citizen of the United States," the governing phrase from Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. Happily, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution resolves this question for us.
Clearly, says this respected source, what the Founders sought to avoid was foreign intrigue, or intriguers, becoming president. Wise Founders. (Too bad they didn't also say "Marxists need not apply.")
The Guide cites the estimable John Jay, our first Chief Justice, who during the Constitutional Convention wrote to George Washington in 1787 to urge that "a strong check [be included] to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." (Don't you love how Jay capitalizes Citizen?)
Do you have to be born within the territorial limits of the United States to be such a citizen? No, said the Founders. The Heritage Foundation's Guide shows how the First Congress in 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born." This was our first naturalization statute (1 Stat. 104). This Congress contained many Members, notably James Madison himself, who had just framed the Constitution in Philadelphia.
To provide a further check on foreign intrigue, the Founders specified that a person must have been "fourteen years a Resident within the United States." Why was that necessary?
Author David McCullough provides the answer -- although that was not his purpose-in his latest smash bestseller, The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris. McCullough describes John Singer Sargent, the famous American painter. Sargent had been born in Rome to American expatriate parents. Young Sargent lived in Europe and never visited the U.S. until 1876. His wealthy mother brought him to the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia when he was 19 years old.
Could such an expatriate "natural born Citizen" become president? Not unless he returned to the U.S. and lived here 14 years, the Founders wisely provided. John Singer Sargent painted the powerful portrait of Theodore Roosevelt that today hangs in the White House, but he could not have run for the office himself.
The Founders were serious about American identity and the integrity of republican principles. It was an incredible blessing to us that George and Martha Washington had no children of their marriage. Washington had referred to this fact in the first draft of his Inaugural Address. There would be no danger of monarchy here, he said, because he had "no child for whom I could wish to make provision -- no family to build in greatness upon my country's ruin."
Now, consider Marco Rubio. His parents were resident aliens when he was born in 1971, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "all persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside." This "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause shows why Rubio is -- and, very likely, why children of illegal aliens are not -- a "natural born citizen of the United States."
We should be very careful in discussions of the Constitution to avoid the impression that we are an anti-immigrant party. To say that Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are forever barred because of a strained interpretation of the Constitution's eligibility clause would condemn conservatism to minority status for the foreseeable future. Surely, that is not what we want.
Let's remember Ronald Reagan's beautiful Farewell Address. He spoke of Vietnamese Boat People in the South China Sea.
... the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, "Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man."
Today, Marco Rubio is a freedom man. So are Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley a freedom man and woman. We should be proud to have any of these children of exiles as our president.
>>> WRONG KATE < THERE ARE AT LEAST 4 CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT - SETTING PRECEDENT THAT " NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT .
THE MOST NOTABLE , MINOR vs HAPPERSET WAS DECIDED UPON THE PREMISE OF VATTEL 'S " LAW OF NATIONS " STATEMENT THAT BOTH PARENTS OF THE CANDIDATE MUST BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . THE PARENTS OF MARCO RUBIO WERE NOT NATURALIZED AS CITIZENS UNTIL MARCO WAS 4 YEARS OLD , THUS DISQUALIFYING HIM FROM THE OFFICE .
I've been looking at this since BEFORE BO was elected and took office. You are correct that "Natural Born Citizen" was derived from Vattel’s Law of Nations
Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens - it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Kate, I'll look again, but don't remember finding anything from Heritage that states "Natural Born Citizen" does not require two citizen parents .
Heritage Foundation is promoting the leftist concept that "anchor baby" is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, with the passage of the 14th Amendment, which is an "immigration and naturalization" amendment pertaining to "citizen" not Natural Born Citizens.
The American Thinker writer Kate quotes in unknown, as he hides behind a pen name "Chet Arthur" borrowed from our nation's first unconstitutional WH resident, Chester Arthur.
Both American Thinker and Heritage Foundation are entirely unreliable sources today, sadly.
RIGHT-WING MEDIA PROMOTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL VP CANDIDATES?