Though I’ve mentioned it here on this site before — and many times on my radio program — it bears repeating, especially in light of the fact that some pretty sharp folks out there still don’t get what a natural born citizen is.
It galls me to hear TV idjits like Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, and O’Bloviator say time and again that Rubio should be on the ’12 ticket for the White House. Are they ignorant? Or are they being willfully deceitful?
Folks are all gaga over Marco Rubio, my US Senator (yes, I voted for him). And granted, he seems — for all appearances — to have the tools and mindset that we’re looking for in Washington. But as I’ve reminded folks time and again, Rubio is NOT eligible to be Prez under the Constitutional requirements any more than Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal or Barack Hussein Obama (PBUH) are.
Folks here in Florida who know Rubio have mixed feelings about him and the “famiglia” that surrounds, sequesters, and protects him. Rubio is not every Floridian’s golden boy. They know too much about him.
Cdr. Charles Kerchner has spent the past three to four years studying the NBC issue, has even brought forward a lawsuit challenging Obama, which the courts refused to hear on its merits, as all the courts have done with the dozens of other eligibility lawsuits. Cdr. Kerchner has written reams of copy about it, debated paid Obamabots (oh yes, they’re paid to troll on behalf of the slitherer-in-chief) and has placed several full page informational ads in the Washington Times, often paid from his own resources.
I consider him and attorney Mario Apuzzo to be experts on the subject.
Also, consider this — Rubio will not respond to repeated questions about his heritage. Why not? According to Cdr. Kerchner, until his first blog post on 22 May 2011 of the facts as to when his parents became U.S. citizens, Senator Marco Rubio has been evasive and not forthcoming about his exact citizenship status upon his birth in the United States in May 1971. Phone calls, emails, and letters to his office by various volunteers over the last year have gone unanswered on the question of whether his parents (who were immigrants from Cuba) had become naturalized citizens of the USA by the time of Marco’s birth in the USA.
So, with that, here’s Cdr. Kerchner’s considered opinion and history of Marco Rubio. You might not like it, but facts are facts. And he’s got the documentation to back it up. Putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak.
Marco Rubio is a Cuban Citizen. Senator Marco Rubio’s Lack of Natural Born Citizenship Update 27 May 2011: See PDF copy of the Sep 1975 Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, more than 4 years before his father elected to become a U.S. Citizen and renounce his Cuban citizenship.
As a dual-citizen at birth Marco Rubio does not have sole allegiance to the United States. He is still a Cuban Citizen under U.S. law, Cuban law, and international law.
Marco Rubio also claims his parents came to the U.S. to escape the communist takeover by Fidel Castro. Marco’s parents came to the U.S. in May 1956. Castro and the communists did not take over Cuba until 1959. His parents came here for a better job as a bartender in the Miami FL hotels via connections he made by those owners having casinos and hotels in Cuba.
Marco Rubio has been embellishing his early life story to win the sympathy of the real Cuban refugees that did come to the USA to escape Castro in much the same way some politicians have embellished their military records and similar to the way Obama embellished his life story with his Selma AL comments.
Marco Rubio is not a natural born Citizen of the United States having sole allegiance to only the USA at birth. Marco is to this day a Citizen of Cuba. For more see: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/senator-marco-rubios-lack-of-natural-born-citizenship-update-27-may-2011-see-pdf-copy-of-the-sep-1975-petition-for-naturalization-for-mario-rubio-father-of-senator-marco-rubio-who-was-born-in-may/
The Constitution matters. The truth matters. The RNC and DNC have got to stop putting up ineligible candidates for Pres and VP.
95%+ of the American Citizens are natural born Citizens. It is from them that our Constitution says we must choose our President and commander of the military and the VP.
We are going to disagree on this.
Nowhere in the constitution does the term Natural Born Citizen get defined. It has been subject to interpretations based on what the interpreter chooses to believe.
One definition that it cannot be is that the parents of the president be citizens of the United States. The reason that this is impossible is because the first 14 presidents of the U.S. did not have parents born in the United States. Buchanan was the first.
CDR Kerchner has stated many times that he feels he knows what the framer’s intent was. I think we can agree that the intent was to keep a non-citizen, particularly from England, from coming to America and buying a presidency while having no allegiance to us. In fact, this spirit of the law was tested in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran for the presidency. Goldwater was not born in the United States. He was born in the territory of Arizona before it was part of the union. There was debate, it was discussed, it was controversial. Ultimately it was decided that Goldwater was indeed loyal to America. To rule otherwise would be ridiculous. This was done for a man who was not born in America. Rubio was.
Al Gore was not born in “the United States.” He was born in DC. Of course he was allowed on the ballot.
For people to seek to disallow a person born on this soil, who’s become a U.S. senator, whose parents expatriated from another country 50 years ago and who became citizens 36 years ago, based on their interpretation of Natural Born Citizen, a phrase not defined in the constitution, seems a bit overzealous.
I understand “letter of the law.” But in this case, there is no letter.
-bigfurhat
Re: -bigfurhat,
I have to respectfully disagree with BFH as although this person has a great website, this person has not spent the hours actually researching this topic. Especially in the light of BFH’s reference to Buchanan who was NOT the 1st natural born president. BFH makes the typical mistake claiming the parents have to be born in the US. False, BOTH parents must be citizens of the state in which they reside in, in the US at the time of their child’s birth for the child to be a natural born citizen. The parents themselves do NOT have to be born in the US.
Actually Martin Van Buren was the 1st natural born president. All before him fell under the grandfather clause as their parents owed allegiance to another nation at the time of the child’s birth. They became citizens of their respective states at the time of the Declaration of Independence and then later grandfathered in as US citizens upon the ratification of the US Constitution. All per natural law defined by the Declaration of Independence & the fact that one can not serve 2 masters/owe allegiance to 2 nations at the same time as defined by the Buchanan Administration in 1859.
NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US Govt Administration & NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US AG http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/
FYI…This Buchanan Administration OP that was published nationwide during the summer of 1859 was cited by the US Supreme Court as well as Harvard Law as it pertained to natural born citizenship years AFTER Obama was born. Harvard Law on the Buchanan Att. Gen OP: “the celebrated opinion presented by Attorney General Black to President Buchanan, and the Expatriation Act of 1868”. BFH can read all about it in my April research article: Natural Birthright Citizenship: Birthright of Blood According to English Common Law
-Linda Melin ~ ConstitutionallySpeaking