How Marco Rubio Could Destroy The Apple Cart

How Marco Rubio Could Destroy The Apple Cart
~the collusion of silence that only “a bomb” can end
by a.r. nash

When Joseph Farrar, founder of World Net Daily, appeared recently on the Sean Hannity program, the possibility of Marco Rubio being chosen for Vice-President was raised.  Farrar responded that he isn’t eligible to be President or Vice-President because he is not a natural born citizen.  His common-sense, plain-&-simple observation hit a brick wall.  That wall may be one erected by Hannity’s boss, Rupurt Murdock, who has a whole corral of people who will never discuss the issue of presidential eligibility.  Or it may have been a wall of ignorance.  (-it could possibly be both.)

In America today, few people have been awakened to the issue of who is and is not eligible to be the President, -myself included until a year ago when I received an email from my sister with a link to an article at WND.  What I read was a surprise to me, and altered the course of the next year significantly.  I don’t remember even having any thought about the subject until then.  And it’s clear that the rest of the nation is as clueless as I was because the only national stage that’s serving to wake them up has been the internet, not Congress or the courts, not the mains-stream media or the legal profession.  But they need to be awakened badly.
Marco Rubio could do it, and he may be the only person that could (aside from a better informed Donald Trump or Ron Paul)  because the media seems to be either astonishingly ignorant or in a collusion of silence.

What could he do and how could he do it?  He could force the nation to take note of the fact that our current President is not constitutionally qualified to serve as President or Vice-President.  He could do that upon being chosen as or offered the spot of Vice-President.  He could hold a press conference and announce to all that he would love to serve, be honored to serve, but cannot serve because he is constitutionally unqualified to serve.  Then he would explain that he was born to foreign parents and not American parents and therefore was not born as a natural American citizen as required by the Constitution.

Those words would be like dynamite in the nation’s conversation.  Everyone would finally wake the heck up because it would be all over every form of talk media, especially if he made the announcement at the Republican Convention.  That explosion of consciousness would blow-up the candidacy of Barack Obama because his aura of legitimacy would be thrown into question in everyone’s mind as they’d come to realize that someone born to foreigners, or a foreign father, cannot possibly be a natural, native, American citizen.

Currently, the conventional wisdom is that anyone who is “native-born” is a citizen and therefore eligible to be President.  That’s one misunderstanding, but it has a companion among some at the opposite side of the political spectrum who believe that both a domestic birth and native parents are required.  But the Constitution only requires that one be a “natural born citizen” and makes no reference to a requirement regarding one’s place of birth.  So the Goldilocks middle is simply any and every American who was born to American parents.  No one born to foreign parents is eligible.

Historically, that meant anyone with an American father married to the child’s mother.  American girls/women were automatically born with the same citizenship as their father, inheriting his via patrilineal descent.  They belonged to him and lived under his roof until they belonged to their husband or lived on their own as a spinster.
If an American male married a foreign female, then her foreign nationality was replaced with American citizenship via a principle known as automatic naturalization based on “derivative citizenship”.  The U.S. government once followed that ancient tradition.  By it the wife left her father’s nationality and adopted her husband’s nationality.  It was known as “naturalization by marriage”.  From the perspective of her own government, it was “expatriation my marriage”.  So she adopted her husband’s name, family, and nationality all on the same day.  Truly a new beginning.  That way, it was literally impossible for an American man to have a wife who was not an American also.  But it didn’t work the same for American women.  Some of them could and did have foreign husbands.   Producing children with a foreigner resulted in a conflict of nationalities if there was no solution to a child having two conflicting natural allegiances.

When, during the 20th century, women acquired many of the civil rights of men, women were no longer subject to statutory loss of citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner.  They retained their American citizenship, and it was the natural right of their children to inherit it, just as it was their right to inherit that of their foreign father.
But that created the conflict of dueling allegiance and national jurisdiction.  So the government, the INS and State Dept. in the 20th Century had to deal with that kind of situation by either doing nothing and allowing dual-citizenship, or instead choosing to not follow the law (the Naturalization Act of 1907, amended by the Cable Act of 1922 and subsequent revisions) but choosing instead to stick to their tradition of expatriation by marriage.  A statement made by the Attorney General in 1969 (8 years after Barack Obama Jr. was born) seems to indicate that they choose the latter, regardless of a tangential Supreme Court ruling in 1967 that made that policy unconstitutional.

That would not have been the first situation in which the INS, State Dept, and Justice Dept. acted in violation of constitutional law.  The 14th Amendment of 1868 declared in effect that all children born to unnaturalized American immigrants were U.S. citizens, yet they continued to view them and treat them as foreigners since they had foreign parents.  Not until 30 years later did the Supreme Court put an end to that policy.

Currently most Americans, regardless of position or profession, -including the legal profession, are under the misconception that anyone who is “native-born” can be President, but that is erroneous for 3 significant reasons.  Reason #1. Being “native-born” does not make one a native if one is not born to native parents.  “Native-born” persons who are born to foreign fathers are not natural American natives since natural natives are only born to fathers who are already natives (even if they were nativized by being naturalized).  Immigrant parents cannot produce natural natives.  Instead their children are naturalized native-born citizens, -they’re naturalized automatically at birth by the 14th Amendment.

“Native-born” naturalized citizens must be born in America in order to be naturalized at birth and obtain U.S. citizenship because they are not the product of natives of America, but of natives of another country.  It’s their birth and life in America that gives them a connection to America that’s stronger than the connection to their parents’ native country.  But natural natives can be born anywhere because they are born with the unalienable right to inherit their native parents’ membership in their nation even if their birth happens to occur, by happenstance*, outside the nation’s borders.

[ ~if born within the borders of a neighboring country while one’s native-citizen parents were visiting there, would one’s life be significantly altered if that one day or hour of their whole life could be made to disappear from their life-history and experience?  Absolutely not.  Nothing would change.  So there’s no rational basis to think that such a birth location holds any meaning or significance whatsoever, especially when it comes to presidential eligibility and a person like John McCain.]

Reason #2.  Being “native-born” does not convey citizenship upon everyone born to foreigners in America because not all foreigners are legal immigrants and thus members of American society whose children are granted citizenship by the authority of the 14th Amendment.  Some are foreign Diplomats, foreign military personnel, foreign tourists, foreign students (Obama Sr.), etc. whose U.S.-born children are also under the authority of their parents’ foreign government and protected politically by international treaty.

Reason #3.  Being a citizen of the United States is fine for any and every other office besides that of the President, but the President must be a natural born citizen.  Just as all “native-born” persons are not citizens, so also all native-born citizens are not natural born citizens.
Those who are born to foreigners who are legal immigrants but are not naturalized citizens, do not qualify for the presidency because they are the off-spring of foreigners, with an inherited background of a foreign heritage.  Their citizenship is “native-born” statutory citizenship via the 14th Amendment, and not natural citizenship via Natural Law.
Marco Rubio is such a citizen.  If his father had completed the naturalization process before he was born then his parents would have been American citizens when he was born, instead of Cuban citizens.  Only children of American citizens are eligible to be the President, -not the children of foreigners.
If Senator Rubio were to be cognizant of this fact, and proclaim it openly to the American people, then he could bring down the presidency of Barack Obama, or at the least prevent him from being allowed to be the Democrat candidate.  That would spell the end of his illegitimate presidency and the worst constitutional violation of the office of the President in American history.

So, can everyone born in America be President?  Only in the delusional dream of the erroneous “common knowledge” concept that prevents free thought and inquiry to take place due to “group-think”.

*Presidential ineligibility that’s based not on inherited “foreign blood” but on the mere happenstance of one’s mother’s location at the moment of delivery is an idea that’s elementary to say the least, and totally devoid of any rational applicable principle related to a singular allegiance to the land of one’s people, -not “the land of one’s birth”.  The land be damned.  It matters not where one is born, but what does matter is to whom one is born.  Presidential ineligibility based on happenstance would be the irrational result if the sons of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower happened to have insisted that they exit their mother’s womb before she could return back across the border during a visit to Niagara Falls in Canada.  You know how rational that is.

http://obama–nation.com   http://photobucket.com/obama_bc

Advertisements

2 Responses to How Marco Rubio Could Destroy The Apple Cart

  1. I’m sorry, but there seems to be something wrong with this thinking. The definition of NBC is tied up with both jus sanguinis and jus soli – born of the blood AND of the soil. See the in-depth research & articles of Mario Apuzzo on the subject. But there are some exceptions if the child is not born on U.S. soil, or its equivalent – as, very possibly, was the case with McCain, who was possibly born in Panama: instead of obfuscating the matter (& the Senate passing a resolution on the matter; which cuts no ice regarding a constltutional legal matter), he could have argued with legitimacy (and raised some consciousness on this important matter amongst the American public) that the purpose of the NBC clause was to keep out of the presidential office those born with foreign claims to their allegiance. Which was not the matter in his case, for he was born without Panamanian citizenship anyway, because of Panamanian law.

    If a person is free of foreign claims of allegiance, that serves the intent of the NBC law. Which does not cover Obama, or anybody born with dual citizenship/loyalties.

    • arnash says:

      I’ve read the essays by both Apuzzo and Donofrio and understand them completely, but unfortunately they’ve both made the same erroneous leap of logic which turned Vattel’s observation around backwards. I’ve explained the error they’ve made extensively in 4-5 essays on the subject which will clarify the facts of the matter. As you read further you’ll come to realize that being a natural citizen is completely unrelated to geography and imaginary national borders. There is no jus soli in anything that is natural. Only blood is natural, or organic, -not dirt or artificial man-made borders.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: