RUBIO – ARE CONSERVATIVES BEING HYPOCRITICAL?

by Harry Riley on September 20, 2011

Patriots,

There is a movement suggesting Senator Marco Rubio as a potential Vice Presidential candidate in the 2012 election. Many of us have been fighting for an investigation into Barack Obama’s credentials to serve as president. There is every indication that Senator Rubio does not meet Article 2, Section 1 criteria of “natural birth citizenship. We can’t have it both ways…
While Senator Rubio is held in high regard in Florida and support his continued national leadership, the following article makes a strong case that Senator Marco Rubio is ineligible to serve as VP/President of the U.S.
There is one item that I note not in Mr. Hollrah’s article, that being the official status of Senator Rubio’s parents citizenship at the time of the Senator’s birth. The official naturalization documentation filed in September 1975 by Senator Rubio’s parents, over four years after Senator Rubio was born, may be reviewed here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/56489970/Naturalization-Petition-Filed-in… This clearly confirms Senator Rubio was born a dual citizen of Cuba and the United States.

Harry Riley

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/2760

Paul R. Hollrah
September 5, 2011
150 Walnut Street
Locust Grove, OK 74352
phollrah

The Rubio Eligibility Question

by Paul R. Hollrah

On June 4, 2011 I published an analysis of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The analysis, titled “The Obama Eligibility Question,” provided convincing proof that he is not a “natural born” citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Now, just months later, many conservatives who are convinced of Obama’s ineligibility are getting their shorts in a knot over the possibility of having Florida Senator Marco Rubio as the 2012 Republican nominee for vice president. Unquestionably, Rubio would be an exceptional choice and an exceptional president or vice president. But if we are convinced that Obama is ineligible to serve because he fails to meet the “natural born” standard, then we must also apply that same standard to Marco Rubio. We cannot have it both ways.

As conservatives and as Republicans, we differ from liberals and Democrats in that we actually hold ourselves to constitutional principles and the rule of law.

First, let us compare Rubio’s eligibility to that of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who expressed an interest in running for president shortly after he became Governor of California. What do Rubio and Schwarzenegger have in common? The one thing they have in common is that both were born to parents, both of whom were citizens of a foreign country at the time of their birth.

The primary difference between the two is that Schwarzenegger was born in Austria to Austrian parents, while Rubio was born in the United States to parents who were Cuban citizens. Hence, those who assert that Rubio is eligible to serve, while Schwarzenegger is not, are forced to rely solely on the fact that Rubio was born on U.S. soil. This leads to the irrational conclusion that to be born on American soil is to be “native born,” and that to be “native born” is equivalent to being “natural born.” It is not. To insist that Rubio is a “natural born” citizen because he is “native born” is to say that the nationality and citizenship of one’s parents is of no significance.

So if place of birth is paramount, as claimed by supporters of Rubio and Obama, what of men such as Governor George W. Romney (R-MI), who sought the Republican nomination in 1968, and Senator John McCain, who was the Republican nominee in 2008? Romney was born in Chihuahua State, Mexico, to parents who were both U.S. citizens, while McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens.