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 circumstances.”
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 States.”
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 Constitution.
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 country.”
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…
This scenario may actually guarrantee a ‘birther’ silence on boths sides of the aisle – a scenario which naturally makes Bilderberg the ultimate winner.
This article was posted: Friday, April 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm