Like Obama, Bilderberg VP Favorite Marco Rubio Has a Question of Natural Born Citizenship
April 13, 2012
The Washington Post’s report yesterday that the supranational globalist steering organization Bilderberg Group
will be picking imminent GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential
running mate, has set the media alight – fueled with speculation as to
who that pick might be.
It’s quite sureal to see the cryptic Bilderberg Group grabbing
major media headlines, and Americans should be rightly outraged as to
why a shadowy group of internationalists could be selecting an American
VP. But there may be even more interesting aspect to this story, quietly
boiling under the surface.
Washington Post insider Al Kamen indicated that both President Obama
and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be attending the Summit of the Americas this
weekend in Cartagena, Colombia. Interestingly, they will also be
accompanied by Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a burgeoning Latino
political icon who many pundits believe will be Romney’s running mate.
Democrats have long-since circled their wagons, rallying around Barack Obama to defend the President’s own ‘birther’
controversy where critics and investigators have called into question
Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the office of US President according
to Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution which sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States.
One of the most puzzling aspects of the whole Obama eligibility controversy has been that even in the face of overwhelming evidence of forgery, fraud and the fact that Obama, by definition, is not a Natural Born Citizen - Washington’s normally righteous Republican Party has remained absolutely silent – never once challenging Obama on his questionable citizenship credentials. And no one knows why.
Funny enough, the answer may be right here…
Marco Rubio could very well be the GOP’s ‘trump card’ - a popular
and conservative Hispanic leader, could very well make the difference in
a tight national race come November.
With the question of the incumbent President’s eligibilty hanging
over the nation’s head, one might ask: Would these same Democrat
defenders dare to challenge Marco Rubio’s claim to natural born
citizenship in the US – and thus, his ability to appear on the ticket? Would they dare?
According historical expert and WND Senior Reporter Dr. Jerome Corsi, just like Barack Obama, Rubio
is, quite simply, not a “natural born citizen” by the accepted legal,
English-language standard as it has been known throughout American
history. He was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents.
Corsi goes to point out here,
“I know this is not a popular notion among Republicans, just as it
wasn’t among Democrats when challenges were made to Obama. However, the
Constitution should always trump political expediency”.
“This is not a “technicality,” as some might suggest. If we don’t
adhere to the Constitution on matters as significant as presidential
eligibility, then the Constitution ceases to be a meaningful document
for guiding our nation. Indeed, it becomes the kind of “living document”
that many liberals have claimed it should be – ever-changing to new
Corsi proceeds to lay out the case which would define a Natural Born Citizen, according to both US and international law:
Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S.
citizens on Nov. 5, 1975 – four years after Marco Rubio was born. That’s
really all you have to know. That simple fact, one not in dispute,
disqualifies him legally, barring an amendment to the Constitution, or a
complete and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution, from
being president or vice president. Those are the only two offices in the
U.S. that have such a requirement.
The definition of natural-born citizen approved by the first U.S.
Congress can be seen in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which regarded
it as a child born of two American parents. The law, specifying that a
natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil, stated: “The
children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,
or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural
born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not
descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United
While the act was repealed five years later, it, nevertheless,
represented the will of the Congress that the U.S. not be led by someone
with dual loyalties.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the 14th
Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a
natural-born citizen is “born within the jurisdiction of the United
States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”
“The Law of Nations,” a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher
Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American founders and
informed their understanding of law later established in the
Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two
citizens and made it clear that the father’s citizenship was a loyalty
issue: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. 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. … 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
As Corsi explains, this is no mere technicality, nor is it coming
from a partisan perspective (WND is well-known for its Republican and
Republican Party advocates), rather it is a fundamental question of the
law which is meant to govern our nation domestic and foreign affairs.
Who would have known that Barack Obama and Marco Rubio’s destinies might be tied inextricably together.
Both men support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants - and both are sympathetic to open borders. So…
See Votes by State
News & Politics