This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Did Presidential Candidate, Marco Rubio, Make A Deal With The Devil?
Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com,
Is mainstream media really going to ignore that Marco Rubio’s campaign is named after the late 1990′s think tank called a ‘Project for a New American Century’ (PNAC), founded by Head Neocon – Bill Kristol? And this is no coincidence. Guess who’s doing the Sunday talk show circuit campaigning for a Rubio presidency? You know it…
Now as a reminder the PNAC is a lobby group formed by a host of neocons at the end of the 1990′s with an objective of war in the Middle East. See if you recognize a few of the notable names of people that signed the PNAC’s founding statement of principles; Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Ron Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. You’ll note these guys became Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board and Deputy Secretary of Defense, respectively, under president Bush about six months before 9/11.
Have a look at the following recommendations from the Project for a New American Century’s apex report sent to President Clinton in September of 2000. One year exactly before the 9/11 tragedy that became the sales pitch for an unendable war on terror similar to Reagan’s war on drugs some 35 years ago, both still going strong with no signs of slowing. The report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” recommends that while the world was in the longest sustained period of global peace (acknowledged in the report) that America should establish four key objectives as it headed into the new century. Pay particular attention to the second ‘core mission’ in the following excerpt from the report.
Funny thing about these four core missions is that each and everyone of them came to fruition. Not surprising given the authors became the senior military policy makers about 6 months after the recommendations were sent to outgoing President Clinton. Now there is more than meets the eye to all of this and I won’t get into the details here but for those interested, if you want to understand the very ugly truth about how and why America is in the midst of a seemingly endless war on ‘terror’ in the Middle East have a read of an article I wrote some time ago called “The Most Essential Lessons of History that No One Wants to Admit“.
You will realize that our boy Bill Kristol is just the face of an immense amount of money and political persuasion. Money talks and our government is for sale. Just ask Marco Rubio what the going rate for naming rights is on a presidential campaign these days. The power and money that Kristol represents do not provide their support without expectations. These thugs absolutely want their return on capital. The returns come by way of a currency only a President carries.
Anyone not interested in WWIII should be very wary of a Rubio presidency. Marco Rubio’s financial backing will absolutely guarantee a war with Russia and a war with Russia means a war with China for it must protect its future energy supplies. Bill Kristol and his band of armchair warriors have been lobbying for a war with Russia since at least as far back as 2004 as evidenced in the following letter to group of European heads of state.
The letter really depicts the kind of rhetoric used by these neocons. You can see from the list of names supporting this effort at the end of the full letter, these neocons are the very same neocons recommending the US start a series of arbitrary wars in the name of peace via the Project for a New American Century, as noted above. Now they lack any substantive facts in their letter and so use implications and conjecture about Russia being a dictatorship, which is no more true, and probably less, than it is for the US meaning we are throwing stones in glass houses. President Bush and Obama remember have signed several executive orders, such as the AUMF and NDAA that negate an American citizen’s constitutional rights.
The best evidence that indeed Americans’ constitutional rights to things like Habeas Corpus are negated under the combined executive orders of AUMF and NDAA is depicted in the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit District Judge, Lewis Kaplan’s ruling statement. He explains their plurality decision was a compromise that gives authority to suspend a citizen’s constitutional rights but only until the respective ‘war’, is over. However this is not a compromise at all. When the ‘war’ is a war on terror it is not only indefinite but infinite for when would we ever suggest we are no longer fighting against terrorism. So while the District court’s ruling suggests that it limits the negation of a citizen’s constitutional rights, for all intents and purposes it limits the negation to a duration of forever, which is by definition not a limitation.
But as I so often do I digress. My point is that Bill Kristol and his armchair warriors have been lobbying for a war with Russia in the very same way they lobbied for “multiple simultaneous major theater wars”, which they got in the Middle East. One can only conclude then that given a Rubio presidency, war with Russia is all but guaranteed.
One of Kristol’s armchair warriors is the one and only Victoria Nuland, wife of a Kagan boy, he himself a general in the armchair army. Note that Nuland was the conductor of the coup d’etat in Ukraine as evidenced in a recording of a conversation between her and a fellow US diplomat discussing who they were going to place as head of state in Ukraine. Now the recording begs two questions. What gives US diplomats the right to decide the head of state for a foreign ‘democratic’ nation? And perhaps more interesting, how did Nuland know that there would be an opening for head of state in Ukraine given the recorded conversation took place prior to the coup d’etat and so prior to any rational notion that a replacement would be needed? Unless of course Nuland was aware that there would soon be an opening for the role of President of Ukraine.
Anyone that still believes the US is not the most corrupt government in the world is simply in denial. All the facts are there and to discount them is to deny them. I’m going to leave you with perhaps the best interview I’ve ever seen with Bill Kristol by a character we can all appreciate. Enjoy it but don’t miss the message. Kristol is nothing but a muppet, however, the men behind Kristol are extremely dangerous and men who work in political shadows to get what they want by purchasing and threatening the careers of American legislators. These men who work in the shadows are just the current members of the same group that forced Woodrow Wilson to approve the Central Banking Act against his better judgment in 1913 and 30 years later forced Harry Truman to support taking land from the Palestinians and calling it Israel against his better judgement. Ample evidence shows that both took those personally regretful actions under extreme political duress by a group we now call the neocons.
Rubio has essentially made a deal with the devil. He has accepted the help of perhaps the most powerful political force in Washington but it will cost him a Presidential executive order to initiate military aggression against Russia. If we allow this to play out the blood of so many more young Americans and other young men and women around the world will be on the hands of we the people for again failing to uphold our duties as Americans, a self governed people, rather than as subservient fools.
- 29484 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -





All PNAC scum should be arrested and hanged.
Bill Kristol always has that self serving smirk of taking a nice dump on the Constitution. He's a fucking uncircumcised Philistine pretending to be a tribal Pharisee wrapped in an American flag.
This article implies this is somehow surprising, that it wasn't to be expected this is exactly the kind of shit Rubio would shill for. This is the mainstream republican red meat right here, this is what they want to hear
Jeb Bush founding signatory of PNAC.
The Axis of Evil: CIA, PNAC & Rothschild Central Banking
I see Irving Kristol's (Bill's father) bio on wikipedia has been white-washed as much as possible, since last I checked. Hope that Trotskyist scumbag is burning in hell.
Bill Kristol's father was a card carrying member of the communist party.
The ZioCon PNAC Revolutionaries who plotted, planned and executed the New Pearl Harbor attack on America are the New Bolsheviks.
Iron fisted ZWO totalitarian rule just around the corner now.
Kristol really does have the face of a retard
Braindead idiots repeat socialist democrat anti jewish slurs like "neocon"......
Grow some balls and call the jews some names outright, coward!
That pile of stinking Khazarian shit Kristol (don't you love the names they give themselves!).
If I ever convert, I am going to change my name to William "Lightningstein" or something really catchy...
Try Feivel Lightningstein...or Ben-Zion TheShitBerg. Gotta blend at the bah-mizvah's baby.
Begging jews for money & endorsements = Making A Deal With the Devil... Nothing more needs to be said...
Saying Rubio is a piece of crap is not news to Floridians. He's all flash no substance.
Neocon is hardly an anti-Jewish slur, and calling it that is lazy. It's like calling every critic of Obama a racist.
Most Republicans today, whether they admit it or not, are neocons, and most Republicans are not Jewish. Domestic policy has taken a back seat to aggressive foreign policy. There's nothing the slightest bit conservative about longing for the US to become an empire, yet that's precisely what most Republicans now support, either explicitly or implicitly. This is by definition the "new conservatism," as it is at odds with traditional conservatism and is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics.
+1000 McMolotov
They have to protect their Neocon golem.
They couldn't give a squirt of reptile piss about the U.S. domestic context, just so long as the charade of democracy can continue to feed the banking MIC beast to serve its intended purpose.
McMolotov you seem to forget that both parties "leaders" are just patsy's to the money changers. Yes, they are all Neocons, but no, they are not all ring leaders.
.
They will back anyone who is willing to do their bidding - better odds of winning without cheating that way.
Cheating doesn't bother these guys at all.
In fact, I think they enjoy it.
From the PNAC document ”Rebuilding America's Defenses,” written in September of 2000, a full year before the 9/11 attacks, page 51:
”Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"
There you have it. The fact that they haven't all been tried and hanged, but instead manufactured the consent for the endless so called war on terror is indicative of what's to come.
I heard Richard Perle say he didn't know what a 'neocon' was and certainly had never met any, so there you go.
My visceral hatred for these lying MFs knows no bounds.
Psychotic
Neocons
and
Commies
That's an insult to Commies.
How about Psychotic Neocons and MadScientists? Or Stalinists?
.
I can't help but think the choices put up by the two parties in the modern era (certainly from Carter up) always seem to come down to an old argument served up in every Macro Econ 101 class: "guns vs. butter". The Rs seem to put up the "guns" candidate more often than not (neocon military interventionalism) and the Ds put up the "butter" (progressive socialism).
Not a perfect analogy, I know, but good enough to know that whoever our next President is, we'll probably be thinking "you know, maybe that Obama guy wasn't really all that terrible after all" within a couple years.
You are correct, in that this is how the campaign is run, guns vs butter. But once in office, you get that dirty little phrase 'bipartisan compromise' where no matter who wins , vast amounts of money are spent on both guns and butter. 'You give me my new war in the Middle East, I'll make sure we throw a few billion more at all your favorite welfare programs ' and the govt keeps growing in every direction no matter which wing of the statist party is in charge.
Yep, I have railed for years now that government is the problem. They create the problems, the wars, and enable the bankers or other mega corporations from various industries. Politicians are human, and by nature, not perfect and subject to being corrupted, or just as bad, being ideologically driven and forcing their ideas on everyone else.
A good quote....
‘I thought I was supposed to write the horror stories’ - Stephen King on GOP 2016 candidates.
As compared to Hillary? I downvoted you because I live in New England and Stephen King is both a blathering idiot and a mediocre talent who should have quit after his first few clever ideas were played out. The literary version of M. Night Shamalamadingdong.
PS: This article is bullshit not because it is wrong, it isn't, but because this current anti-Russian power play was addressed in 1997 with ZBigs publication of "The Grand Chessboard". It was concurrent with the creation of the PNAC (Spring 1997), which is merely the current face of this evil. Carter was saddled with Mika's daddy, and he too cried about the hidden power he naively tried to deny. Come on - ZBig was an advisor to LBJ fer cryin out loud. He putitively spouts antizionist rhetoric, and yet works for Soros towards the exact same goals re: Ukraine.
But here is news for some of you (down vote away), all these things have been foretold, and things are actually playing out as if from script.
PPS: Don't ZBig and Soros look like they came from the same reptile planet? Maybe they are really Kang & Kodos!!
Thanks booboo, enjoyed that one.
Dunno, maybe the banks and the M.I.C. will put Rubio in; Cuban and all. Get the Republicrats whipped up, the Demicans moaning that we still haven't elected a vagina
I'm thinking that their #1 qualification is someone who will deploy tactical nukes against Iran. You know, send a few over there, then put it on the shoulders of some battlefield commander given sole discretion.
Then start telling Russia, China, and the rest of the world what a terrible mistake it was, and put the commander on trial for genocide. American corporations to spear the relief efforts of course, funded by the Treasury.
"We came, we saw, he melted like butter on a hot, glassy, radioactive desert landscape......" -Hillary-
So you're thinking Hilllary will be up for Sec of State again?
She'll need a speech writer, and I think you've caught the thread and fill the bill so I think you should apply.
I was wondering how far down the article I'd have to read to spot Nudelman and Robert Kagan. Oh there they are!
I would lol to know which derp downvoted you. I wonder if they get double time for working Sundays?
edit: I forgot, the Sabbath is Saturday. I should know better
Strip these Khazars of their credentials and send them to Kiev for good.
Also from Wiki: "Kristol is a harsh critic of former Republican congressman and presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul of Texas and his supporters; he wishes that Ron Paul would leave the Republican Party"
Never vote for someone who supports jews, or gets money from them!
All hail to our new Imperious Leader.
Jeb Rubio Rodham Mallory.
A clone of all the major candidates the elites on both sides want. Brought to you by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Eric Schmidt of Google.
It seriously would be more fun to get rid of the ad campaigns and the lobbyists and just lay the shit bare for all to see....think World Series of Poker but with your ass as the stakes!
Add a little sprinkle of Adelson, two spoons of Soros, stir it well with a jingoism-stick and let it simmer on an AIPAC-plate, a dash of Iranium and serve nuke-hot.
At least we're still online :)
I freelance over th? internet and earn about 80-85$ an hour. I was without a job for 7 months but last month my paycheck with big fat bonus was $15000 just working on my computer from my home for 5-6 hours. Here's what i have been doing... www.globe-report.com
I think you're making that up.
How neocons should be treated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88HEuwInno
That makes him total scum............
Nevertheless, Rubio will enjoy the full support of regularly featured ZH neocon fantasy cartoonist Michael Ramirez.
Spot on, Stooge. It's embarrassing at times.
Jeb Bush, Billie's Butt Buddy Rubio, or Randy Pandy "I Stand With Israel" Paul and Karl Rove's SuperPAC:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/24/rand-pau...
Pick your poison, Proles...
He has many minions, but there is only one Devil.
No minions on mine, I have a date later.
Let me guess.....a devil with a blue dress.
No matter what you do.....you end up dating the devil in form or the other.
'the law of the devil's land' (earth)?
It is certainly a target-rich environment.
think global, act local
Just what we need, a juvenile neocon
Now is when we learn who wants to be elected to advance their principles and who just wants to be elected.
Israel first. Adelson's fifth column sponsored candidates will all commit to bombing Iran to further the ZWO objectives and further destroy America.
Rubio dines with Republican mega-donor Adelson
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/03/rubio-dines-with-republican-m...
Presupposing a need for two categories...interesting.
I really wonder if the US is insane enough to go to war with Russia. I mean that would really be the end of the US and maybe the world. The oligarchs and Wall Street have it so well right now, why would they want to jeopardize it by starting a war? I think all this shit is just posturing and dick grabbing trying to look tough against Russia. They are trying to make Russia make a mistake or look bad or whatever. But Putin is too smart for that. I dont think were going to war anytime soon. At least full scale war.
How normal people think about a "reset": Debt going bust, restart the economic engine afterwards on a more sustainable footing.
How elites think about a "reset": Nuke it, kill off vast swaths of the population and reestablish control afterwards without so many useless eaters to deal with.
What the elites fail to understand is that they are the top priority target of Russia's nukes. They are the front line "infantry" of a nuclear war and will be the first killed. Manhattan Island, the Hamptons, Beltway Maryland and Virginia, silicon valley and San Francisco, Beverly Hills, West Los Angeles and the Hollywood hills. All the oligarchs and oppressors of the American people gone in the first 2 hours.
Who says the elites will be home? Much has been made about secret bunkers built after WW2 for government officials, such as at the Greenbriar resort, and that they would be too far away for said officials to get there before the nukes hit. Not if the US started the war and launched first. There was supposedly a plan for the US to nuke the major cities in Russia by striking first. These long ago constructed bunkers almost confirm that plan. So if that plan is still on the table the rich and connected will be tucked into their bunkers along with the politicians before the missiles fly.
Denver International Airport ring any bells?
That's where all the Windsor lizards will be heading anyway,
The Zios and Wall street know the tide is turning -or will soon turn. Their actions have made this inevitable. They can't sit back and preserve their gains- greed and lust for power is a disease -an addiction. They cannot stop. If they did stop, the damage is allready done -they know we will come after them when the American sheeple realize they have been lead to slaughter - they will not and cannot wait for their inevitable Judgment day - they know they will lose -therefore, they will go on the offensive -they will go for broke. They have no choice. Let the battle begin.
They'll do the same thing any cornered animal does...lash out viciously.
Did you wonder how many Americans wanted to invade Afghanistan and Iraq in 1999?
I wondered in 1979, and 1991.
>>>They are trying to make Russia make a mistake or look bad or whatever. But Putin is too smart for that. I dont think were going to war anytime soon. At least full scale war.
Time is on Russia's side, at least over the short to intermediate term. If putting US troops into Ukraine doesn't get a hot war rolling, about the only thing left for the US to try is a direct attack on Mother Russia herself. Whatever the US can stir up in the Gulf, mid-east or elsewhere is pretty small potatoes compared to openly putting US military units into Ukraine. Russia can just bide its time for the next decade, while the Imperium's decay accelerates.
Unfortunately, the Western PTB may well not be willing to play a waiting game and (as P.C Roberts keeps insisting) may launch a nuclear war on their own terms, no matter what Russia does. Then, the best we can hope for is that mutant Australians and Argentines will eventually re-populate the planet.
Soros made his first billion shorting the British Pound. This is a short dollar play they are setting up. Deaths matter not, to them.
not a finance guy, but setting up a short dollar play does not sound realistic. If the dollar really tanks, it is likely game over completely and a new currency or set of currencies needs to replace it. Or have I got that wrong ?
The current dollar is a dead man walking - math says so. Machinations merely stall and obfuscate, but math will not be denied. Once confidence (the artificial construct that powers the dollar) is shaken, the reality will smack everyone in their stupid faces just like artificial housing valuations did in '08. The global currency/bond bubble is a megaton bomb unto itself. You will see a new currency indeed... something wicked this way comes.
The trouble with attempting to guess if and when "they" might decide to start a war is the assumption that they have everything under control. They don't. The wild card is a loose canon in the form of a momentary slip in judgement, a split second of going off script and deciding to take things into their own hands. The people in charge, the people at the top, are just people with pride, ego and in most cases, psychopathic tendencies. The margin for errors in judgement, mistakes, and downright insanity is too wide to assume that anyone can prevent this thing from going off the rails before we're all fucked. Our so-called leaders have feet of clay and delusions of grandeur. THe caliber of weaponry they have at their disposal is like giving a baby a hand grenade.
Putin is smart but he is just a man. Intelligence is not the same as wisdom. Add to the situation the potential for computer errors, hacking and disinformation and we are clearly perched on a tinder box.
Yea if anyone is going to take us to ww3 it should be Hillary!
The decision is already made, of course. Hillary Clinton will be the next president. Rubio, wittingly or otherwise, is a bogus opposition candidate whose campaign serves to preserve the illusion of democracy and make Clinton look good by comparison.
Nobody who was serious about the White House and had any business there would have allowed such an obvious blunder to pass.
DNC wants her out. Rubio is being used for FLA and hispanic votes. VP, at best.
Bush/Rubio it looks like, who is Wall Butt going to have as her running mate.
Jeb Bush's signature is also on the founding documents of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). https://youtu.be/YsRm8M-qOjQ?t=3m30s
It's their country club. We are not welcome there but somehow are expected to abide by their rules.
If everyone read Breitbart they would already know this, April 13th ;-)
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/04/13/marco-rubios-new-american-century-already-has-a-past/
It's a Zionist joke.
It's not funny.
The banksters need to repay us.
My guillotine is laughing though.
In 2000 it was: "Further, the process of transformation [of the military], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."
In 2015/16 it will be: "Further, the process of transformation [of the military], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like one last Pearl Harbor."
"Just one more, before we move on to plundering Europe."
The banksters need to repay us.
Will there be soon a Project for a New European Century that then publishes "Rebuilding Europe's Defenses," and calling for a "new Gleiwitz incident?"
Russia will win any war. Why would they want that?
To supply their factories, in China, with raw materials. They don't want total destruction(well, maybe in Eastern Europe), just a huge tradable event.
'A good way to prove you are not Rayciss is to vote for Rubio' -Rubio-
These fuckers make me sick.......
Yeah if you don't vote for Rubio you are rayciss, if you don't vote for Hitlery you are sexist. Win-Win.
Look on the bright side, you could've had to sit through 4 years of speeches from Bobby Jindal!
Zio-cons uber alles.
Now sing the Chris-Kyle-Lied.
The banksters need to repay us.
I don't know, Rubio seems to be a pretty decent fellow.
Zio-whore stooge. Nothing decent about that.
arrest them
"Things are not what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream," Gilbert & Sullivan.
What's the difference between Juan Bush and Rubio? Both support illegals. Both are neo-conservatives. Both sold their souls for the neocon dollars.
Is their game plan that either withdraws in favor of the other after their faux dueling? Was Judas forgiven? http://listverse.com/2012/06/19/10-notable-traitors-in-history/
Who wishes die for the glory of Kristol, or Rubio, or Juan Bush? Neocon = neo-war-monger = neo-evil = same old evil.
So which part don't you like, "A", "New", "American" or "Century"? Say, are you really Obama?
The one thing that the the Republican party has missed since Reagan is a candidate that is well spoken. Rubio can speak really well. Bush was hard to listen to most of the time; to be honest he came across as retarded, he never made improvement in his communication skills throughout his tenure.
I don't really care for Rubio, or for that matter any of them, but that said, Clinton can speak fairly well, so the Republicans will need someone to counter that. That is the bottom line.
I get the impression that differing ruling class billionaires are having their own little contest; they all have basically the same motivation, but they prefer different candidates.
When you own the coin, does it matter if it comes up heads or tails?
The bottom line in this circumstance: someone else always loses.
God danm we are so fucked!
Oh, Colbert, must be truth...or something.
I found his show to be entertaining, but he is JUST another bloody douche bag.
Just pan seared some "in house ground beef"
Will be bacon cheese burgers...
Getting ready to have some awesome burgers, just have to finish my 3rd Hardcore Chimera IPA...
These people are playing with matches… I don’t think they understand the scope and scale of the wildfire they are flirting with. They are fucking around with a civil war that could last a decade and cause millions of deaths… and the sad truth is that 95% of the problems we have in this country could be solved tomorrow, by noon… simply by dragging 100 people out in the street and shooting them in the fucking head.
The Pig Trap « Taxicab Depressions
Kristol would likely be in that group of 100
That's a good read...
When you age, ears become larger/elongated. Rubio is going to look like a Disney character well before his time.
"Rube" Rubio: Insufferable, "useful idiot "jerky-boy
Kristol: ZIO SCUMMM* BAG
ZIO SCUMMM BAG Kristol - and his ilk - WILL be held accountable.
(*SCUMMM BAG- Satanic Cabalist Underwriting Mass-Murder, Mayhem & Bolshevik AGression)
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Kristol . . . all are warmongering filth with no national loyalty.
Neocons - the number 1 threat to global peace and stability.
Why leave out Clinton?
All this talk;
- war mongers
- war criminals
- murderers
Etc,, etc.
For all the hate and anger no one is doing anything to stop it. Where are the protests? The law suits? Why is it that Bill Kristol et al can go into public without being challenged, ridiculed, egged, spat upon etc? He and the other Neo-cons seem to enjoy pretty peaceful and happy lives despite all of the tumult that they cause.
So when is it enough?
Rubio was born to NON US Citizen legal resident aliens in Miami, and as such he is not a natural born Citizen.The media is constantly pushing the "Rubio is a candidate" meme to protect the legacy of the Usurper presently sitting in the White House, who was born British, of a British subject father, and as such is not an eligible natural born Citizen either (In fact Hussein Obama may be BRITISH to this day).The media have been apparently given their marching orders.
Despite all the nonsense that "no one knows what the term natural born Citizen means," (like the founders would put a requirement for the chief magistrate in the US Const. and not know what it meant) as postulated by the recent Harvard Law Review paper by none other than the Usurper's Solicitor General, Kayatal, or further back by someone named Jack Maskell for the CRS, the term was very well known to the founders and by the US Supreme Court.
Here is SCOTUS precedent for the meaning of natural born Citizen:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. " Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874)
That's the same way that law of nations (the Original Common Law of the United States-- See Alvarez v. Sosa- Machain (2004)) defines it--- exactly-- as one born in a country of parents who are its citizens (See Law of Nations, Vattel, Bk 1 Ch 212). It is the only definition that comports with the well known stated purpose of the requirement-- prevention of foreign influence (See Federalist 68). If that is the stated reason then it is impossible that one could be born of foreign parentage and be considered a natural born Citizen. When Kayatal and Maskell say that it "must mean" "born a US Citizen" they are attempting to CHANGE THE DEFINITION. "Born a Citizen" could mean one who is NATURALIZED at birth by Congressional statute (i.e 8 US Code 1401(1)). One who is naturalized is not natural born. Hussein Obama has clearly shown that he very little attachment or allegiance to America or its Constitution, despite being a "Constitutional scholar" (what a joke).
That Kayatal and Maskell do not even mention the Minor v. Happersett passage is proof of who they are. All of Congress has participated in the treason of allowing the Usurper, Hussein Obama, to attain the White House, and now they hope to cover their tracks by allowing ineligible candidates from the "R Team" to seek the Presidency and perhaps win. The media is helping them. Despite efforts by Congress as far back as 2004 to change the meaning of natural born Citizen (knowing that they would install Hussein Obama even then), Article 2 Clause 1 Section 5 of US Const. has never been amended. It means the same today as it did in 1789 (it is also well held that the 14th Amendment did not "change" the Constitution, only reaffirmed the god given rights, and prevented individual states from abridging the rights of newly freed slaves).
Marco Rubio would not have even been considered a US Citizen prior to the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898, as he was born in the same circumstance (you think that is a coincidence?). If he would not have been a US Citizen in 1898, then he surely would not be a natural born Citizen today. Wong Kim Ark was deemed a "citizen" in 1898 because he was born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" (See Wong Kim Ark @693) due to the law of nations concept of habitation. Legal inhabitance of legal resident aliens creates an allegiance to the host country as long as that legal residence prevails. That allegiance is passed to the children born in that legal residence, and thus those children are naturalized as "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" (See 8 US Code 1401 (1)). Wong Kim Ark was NEVER called a natural born Citizen, and neither is Marco Rubio.
Ted Cruz, if born before 1934 would not have even been considered a US Citizen, as a US Citizen woman (his mother) who married a foreigner was deemed by law to adopt his nationality. His mother would have been considered a Cuban Citizen, married to a Cuban father (and living in Canada). If Ted Cruz who has ADMITTED to having Canadian citizenship until only recently) would not have been a US Citizen in 1933, then he is not a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS today (since the natural born Citizen requirement has never been amended.).
Here is a Constitutional scholar explaining the requirement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were naturalized at birth by 8 US Code 1401 (1), since they were born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US". They are NOT natural born Citizens
Silly FUDPUPPY.
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement
MAR 11, 2015
128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161
We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1×1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.Show More
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5×5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898). These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposeswhatsoever.”6×6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’sCommentaries,7×7. See 1 William Blackstone,Commentaries *354–63. a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 17908×8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). provided that “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 . . . .”9×9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted). The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.10×10. See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).Show More
The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.11×11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”
The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:
As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”13×13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).Show More The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.14×14. See Michael Nelson,Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).Show More
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15×15. See Monica Langley,Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM),http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.Show More Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.16×16. See Michael Dobbs,John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM),http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html[http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].Show More Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth.17×17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter,Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).Show More Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”18×18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008). And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964,19×19. See Bart Barnes,Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm[http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].Show More and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in1968.20×20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure,N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995,http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.Show More
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
Kayatal is the Usurper's Solicitor General. He wrote that piece of nonsense to protect the Usurper. It is just a little bit of a coincidence that it came out on the Friday before the Monday that Ted Cruz announced his "candidacy".
The Original Common Law of the US is law of nations, not British Common Law. British Common Law exists Municipally only where it does not conflict with the Consttitution of the US. Law of Nations is enscribed in the Constitution itself (See A1S8C10), British Common Law is not.
Law of Nations explicitly defines the EXACT TERM, natural born Citizen, and no mental gymnastics are required to make a "subject" (one who is subserviant to the king, and not eligible to be the sovereign) into a "citizen" (a sovereign).
It never was determined whether Goldwater of Romney were eligible-- they were not elected. Romney was not eligible because he was born in Mexico, but Goldwater was a citizen of the state of Arizona at the time of the ratification of the Constitution by Arizona, therefore he was eligible (A2S1C5, grandfather clause).
As for Resolution 511, it was a total sham, and has no effect of law. They said that McCain was born in US territory (a US military base) when in fact US military bases are NOT US teritory (See 7 FAM US Code). Besides that they cited a Naturalization Act that was voided by the next one.
That John Jay "would not have excluded his own children" is nonsense--- how does Kayatal know--- it is typical relativist thinking of the left wing.
Cruz and Rubio were both NATURALIZED at birth by operation of Congressional statute and the 14th Amendment.
8 US Code 1401 is a NATURALIZATION STATUTE:
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
NO STATUTE is necessay to make a natural born Citizen a US Citizen-- they are born in the US to US Citizen parents--- they are naturally US Citizens--- thus the term (Indigenes).
Of course you nor Kayatal EVER address the Minor v Happersett precedent. Nor do you or he address the FACT that Rubio would not even be considered a US Citizen before 1898, or that Cruz would not have been considered a US Citizen before 1934. Since the nbC clause has never been amended, that means they could NEVER be a natural born Citizen today.They are only considered US Citizens today because of the 14th Amendment and US naturalization law.
Kayatal is attempting to change the requirement to "born a Citizen", which includes NATURALIZED Citizens. The term is natural born Citizen and it is well defined by Original Common Law.
Anyone born abroad to a US Citizen parent is NATURALIZED by 8 US code 1401(1)--- as born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Anyone born in the US to non US Citizen parentage is NATURALIZED by 8 US Code 1401(1).
That you care not for upholding the US onst. shows who you are. Barack Hussein Obama has proven why a nbC is required. HE OBVIOUSLY has no allegiance or attachment to the US or its principles, and is the most devisive, antiAmerican POTUS ever. If you think there is still a US then you are deluding yourself--- It was Usurped and overthrown by the installation of an illegal executor of the laws. When there is no legal executor of the laws, then there is no law. Now the Criminals (of which you may be a part) are attempting to cement that illegal Usurpation as the new law. I will not abide, and you are a traitor.
This kind of BS quibbling is exactly why the US has a well-structured amendment process.
A2S1C5 has NEVER been amended. That's the point. Hussein Obama, and now the candidacy of Cruz and Rubio, and the Harvard law review and the Maskell CRS paper are attempt to amend the Constitution w/o the amendment process--- i.e by Usurpation.
If YOU vote repubican or democrap then it is YOU that is the problem in America. Fuck that, "lesser evil" bullshit.
You will be fed Bush Rubio as a ticket and as your new leaders. The charade goes on...
i agree that will probably be the R ticket, who will be portrayed as out of touch, racist, and misogynistic.
And the emotive sheople, incapable of introspection, research, or anything requiring effort or delayed gratification, will push the button for HC.
51% is all they need. Add up the women, minorities, and magninas and there's your 51%.. certainly a tyranny of the majority of dumbfucks.
This is sick beyond words. PNAC has stood for irrational, world destruction and US global hegemony from the outset. This Rubio is a sychophantic lightweight.
Neo progressives.
Well, as i have always said : The TEA PARTY has many who are FALSE NOSES to the Neo-cons and support their worst instincts as formulated in this insufferable (for the rest of the world) pretense of "New American century"...its perennial platform for the Bushist/Cheney NWO warmongering.
Guess what? The Repugs who drank tea are now taking off their masks as the election approaches.
Mark Rubio who was called the "CROWN Prince" of the Tea Party movement has now declared his true love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio
When the chips fall the Venitian Ball of Senate ends and lays bare the true face of each and every one!
.gov troll ^^^^^
Neo-con troll, I base my comments on FACTS.
What about you???
Either Rubio believes in changing the course of American policy or its "full steam ahead as per status quo"...
And his platform motto says it all.
BTW : ZH's edit asks the same question "supping with the devil ?".
Anyone who would demonize the tea party, a group that says government leave me alone and stay out of my like is a .gov troll. Unfortunately the R Team undermined them to some extent, and they don't stand up and say that Obama is a usurper.
Rubio is not even an eligible natural born Citizen
Rubio was their poster child of the tea party like sarah palin, all expendable false noses of neo-cons.
She was on the same ticket as McCain (can't be moar neo than him) and Rubio was dancing cheek to cheek to "Tea for everybody" until he became a born again neo-con.
Natural born citizen is like natural born Pinocchio nose. It only comes to those who undergo face lifts to sell themselves to the public.
So go peddle your "natural born" killer junk to those mugs without a handle smiling to blind mice thinking they have a blind date with the Man who will shoot the devil and save Liberty Valance.
Wrong scenario in those tea leaves.
"You're the devil in disguise"... sang the King; does that ring a bell or are you still hand wringing at seeing unnatural born being sworn in as natural born?
For the uninitiated: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15541-neocon-invasion
Read Sam Francis's overview on the Neocons.
Wow, a Job Bush surrogate hi piece on ZH. You don't see that every day. Someone's playing the part of the useful idiot.
An excerpt from Thad Beverdorf’s referenced article.
“ Fighting a war for what one believes in is unfortunate and brutal but fighting for lies and deceit to an end that benefits only those telling the lies is a type of ugliness most of us cannot comprehend. It is only in the world ruled by sociopaths where such things can happen.”
Sociopath is the operative term, and said term is closely aligned with psychopath.
Why not defund money power psychopaths? Stop watering weeds. Take away their ability to create debt instruments against society. If they have no money power, then their ability to bribe and become a fifth column against civil society are greatly reduced.
Credit money, that is private bank money, comes into being with hypothecations. During the hypothecation event, a debt instrument is created and then banker gets to hold it. In other words, we have enabled private banking corporations to become creditors against society, yet hypothecation goes forth upon signature authority of debtor. A borrower actually creates credit money, yet usury vectors to banker. Additionally, we have handed authority of magick swaps over to private money power, where they get to swap unlike assets. For example a house or property in exchange for a debt instrument, to then cancel debts. Since the Casino always wins, the swapping authority takes their cut, or puts their thumb on the scale. Libor, Tarp, MBS, QE, Derivatives, Bail-Ins, are all examples of Magick swaps.
Sociopathy and Psychopathy has its roots in supremacist ideology. A rentier at some level must know they are stealing from the mouth of labor. It is but a short leap to a supremacist ideology that gives cover for the stealing. They think, “I am superior and therefore my gains are given to me by my God.”
Note that the Neo-Con’s are closely aligned with Judaism. Judaism in turn is a supremacist ideology. Judaism’s modern roots grew out of destruction of second Temple after 70AD. Hence today’s Judaism is actually younger than Christianity. After 70AD Levite priesthood connections were broken, thus patrilineal genealogy of true sages to Israel and Mosaic law were broken. Today's sages are pretenders. These new Judaics started writing Babylonian Talmud, where Oral Tradition become written down and codified into new law.
Babylonian Talmud in turn borrows heavily from Kabbalah and Zohar. This is all supremacist ideology stuff, mysticism and numerology wrapped up in false Religion that pits my group against your group. Pathological in-group behavior funded by money power is a recipe for disaster. This religion in concert with money power leads directly to psychopathy, witness the behavior of Zionism. To those that know actual history, also know that Zionism is responsible for the lead up to, and maneuvering for, most of the modern era’s major wars, especially including WW2.
We need to defund the bankster’s, and not allow them to hold debt instruments. Further, modern Judaism is a virulent strain of hidden money power and supremacism, and it should be challenged and quarantined before it leads mankind into psychopathic destruction.
U.S. supremacy is but a short leap as well – the exceptional country ordained by history, etc. etc. Christians and others who don’t challenge supremacy of this type are culpable in their silence.
Neo-cons are a toxic blend of Jewish Supremacism and American Exceptionalism, funded by private credit money power.
www.sovereignmoney.eu
While I do not believe that voting matters and that ultimately elections are just theater and the pre-chosen "winner" is simply announced on so called election night... I is frustrating to see that the list of possible human beings in the so called race is declining.
Bush - Of course not
Hillary - Heck no
Rubio - Sadly no
Is Rubio even elligible? Were both his parents citizens at the time of his birth??
No and NO
Yeah for Israel!!!!! Goyim are dumb as shit, except maybe some at ZH.
Frankly, if the GOP ran Netanyahu instead, I might actually support him. He's about as eligible as Rubio, and he's not as obviously a dickless wonder as most in Team Heffalump.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. " Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874)
Rubio and Cruz ARE NOT ELIGIBLE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS
He's already infected with The American Curse >>> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-3z