12 votes

Why Rand Paul Is Marco Rubio's Biggest Political Threat

"David Adams, a Kentucky tea-party activist and former campaign manager for Sen. Rand Paul, remembers a conference call from the 2010 Senate race when the conversation turned to talk of their favorite presidents. Some said George Washington, others Abraham Lincoln. Adams's pick? "Rand Paul in 2016," he recalled.

Three years later, Paul is acting like he’s already preparing a future presidential campaign, courting activists from early-primary states, smoothing out his positions on foreign policy, and delivering a high-profile national address, competing against a potential future GOP rival, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.

Last week the Kentucky Republican spoke at the Heritage Foundation, seeking to dispel the perception that he's an isolationist and embracing George Kennan's containment philosophy. The speech comes after a high-profile visit to Israel where Paul, a vocal opponent of foreign aid, met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and called the country America's "most vital ally in the Middle East." Accompanying Paul on the visit were evangelical activists from the early-primary states of Iowa and South Carolina, a sign the senator wanted to shore up his relationship with devout Protestants, a key part of the Republican voting bloc."

Read the rest of the article @ http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-rand-paul-is-mar...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I agree, there is no threat.

Rand may be being used by the heads to get us on board with them and to imply unity. Some will, some will not. But they will not permit Rand a victory.

Rand is already labeled tea party. I will not speak for the rest of the nation, but in this area people are already dismissing him just for that reason. They [establishment repubs and dems] do not take tea party seriously.

My feeling is this: Rand is not gaining my support due to my own reasons, unless between now and then he shows major strides in promoting my values. But if he is the only viable option when there is no one else, I will admit that he may be better than the evils. While I do not support that philosophy...I hope that you see where I am going with this.

My gut, many here are puting all of their eggs into one basket. It is a set up for yet another failure. We need more Liberty at the local and state levels. If we can promote everybody who is on the side of Liberty, who is president should not matter so much. Keep your congresspeople, senators, governors in the lime light. Promote the hell out them when they do right, but also when they do wrong to hold them accountable. This is an intellectual battle that will not be won by propping only one favorite.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Rubio is dirt

He's part of the 8 senators pushing immigration/passport/verichip international id.

Hemp For Victory!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2Vuw3-VSU

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

There is No 'Threat' Posed

It is simply that, at this point, the establishment is floating and advancing Rubio as a POTSU candidate to see how he develops and how he is received as the GOP 'chosen one'.

Rand Paul is being positioned by the same establishment to be in the wings as a potential alternative 'chosen one', in case Rubio falls flat or if there is the requirement for a 'stalking horse'.

This stuff isn't rocket science, folks.

I think for us it's a

I think for us it's a no-brainer who we'd rather see be the GOP nominee between the two of them.

You think he's being positioned by the establishment?

It's not possible for him to position himself?

http://benswann.com/ es muy guapo! :)

Nobody...

...positions 'themselves' on the national stage. It is a combination of party-establishment, big-money and exposure via the establishment media.

You want to be on that stage and held up as 'a player', well, it is owned by the establishment and unless they assist, advance and/or countenance you, you do not play there.

Anything else?

So

How did Ron Paul get to the national stage?

http://benswann.com/ es muy guapo! :)

I Believe...

...that your question is one you should seriously ponder in the context of what actually happened, who gave him 'media attention' and in what context, who was involved in his 'campaign' (officially), his own campain-efforts and the steps taken to derail or cease it by Dr. Paul himself and by his paid minions.

Down-vote away, but, once again, it is what it is and when one removes the loyal/loving supporter emoting and steps back and assesses, it is pretty clear, at least to me.

You worded it perfect...

... in the comments on National Journal.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

Thank

You!

I'm writing up an article with the math as the focus point right now:)

http://benswann.com/ es muy guapo! :)

Marco Rubio

is not a natural born citizen, therefore he cannot run for the presidency.

"marco rubio is NOT a natural born citizen"

IS CORRECT.

It is imperative that we do not let up on that fact and let it be known. This corrupt government will stoop to anything!

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I'm not defending nor am I a fan of Marco Rubio

But wasn't he born in Miami? Am I wrong about that?

http://benswann.com/ es muy guapo! :)

Natural born..

Were both of his parents?

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

His parents were born in Cuba

But he was born in Florida, wouldn't that make him a natural born citizen? His parents weren't here illegaly.

http://benswann.com/ es muy guapo! :)

Rubio is an

American citizen, he was born on US soil. He is not a natural born citizen, his parents weren't US citizens at the time of his birth.

Rubio is a naturalized citizen.

Rubio was born in 1971, and his parents were naturalized in 1975.

At the age of 18, Rubio had a choice:

A.) remain a Cuban Citizen
B.) become a U.S. Citizen

When Rubio chose to become a U.S. Citizen, he was then naturalized.

The mere fact he had a decision between two countries is the simplest proof that he was naturalized and not natural born, because natural borns are not forced to make an unnatural choice before becoming natural.

Coincidentally, when Rubio became a U.S. Citizen, he lost his Cuban citizenship, because Cuba doesn't allow Cubans to hold multiple citizenships. (But, I might be wrong about this part.)

Founding documents.

I believe that to be natural born, both parents are required to be born here too.

I believe that marco is a citizen, but not natural born.

There is recent and conflicting interpretation of this.

Concerning my post, please correct me if I am wrong.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

NOT entirely true

Founders said that both of your parents had to be citizens prior to your birth. They could be natural born or naturalized citizens but just so long as they were citizens.

In the case of Marco Rubio, BOTH his parents were Cuban citizens and were in fact hell bent on returning to Cuba eventually. But when returning was determined years later to be out of the question, they acquiesced and applied for US citizenship.

Therefore Marco Rubio is NOT natural born

Bobby Jindal has this same problem as both of his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth

Obama had only one parent who was a citizen and she, according to the law at the time, had no ability because of her age to give him such citizenship

ALL three were born with DUEL CITIZENSHIPS. This is fine for most jobs but not fine when it comes to qualifying for the Presidency. Thus the need for the Natural Born citizen clause in the Constitution.

You are correct.

.

I do wish we'd drop this

I do wish we'd drop this birther and truther nonsense. It just makes us look silly.

You may "believe" that but but you don't have support in historical precedent and the most recent Supreme Court rulings.

Chester Arthur's father was a British subject at the time of Chester's birth and NOBODY cared about it despite the fact that Arthur had many political enemies. There is also the Obama precedent.

The most recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition clearly held that all persons born in the U.S. are natural born citizens. See here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Do we aspire to live in a land where

the Constitution is the law of the land? Or is precedent good enough to guide right and wrong by?

Just because it slipped by before does not mean it should be allowed to slip by again.

If you don't understand the need for the Natural Born citizen clause then maybe you need to go back and read what the founders were worried about at the signing of the constitution. Those wise men might help you understand the necessity and the danger.

It is not "the law of the

It is not "the law of the land." The plain words of the Constitution don't settle the question one way or the other. There was not one accepted definition of natural born in the earliest period of U.S. history.

The earliest SC case on this, Minor v. Happersett, stated that it was "in doubt" whether natural born citizenship required both parents to be citizens. In other words, there isn't a single Supreme Court case to back you up. If the founders had all agreed with you, they would have clearly stated in plain language in the Constitution (as they usually did on other issues) that natural born required two-citizen parents.

On the other hand, Kim Wong Ark clearly stated that natural born included all people born in the U.S.

The Constitution IS the "law of the land"

You are in need of a history class refresher.

When questioning the constitution you go back to original intent. There is plenty from John Jay and Washington and others to draw upon. There are even those the framers used as references.

Let me head you off from a tiresome reply. Please don't bother quoting British law to me in regards to citizenship. NO British citizen can become king or queen. Therefore the Natural born status is not equal to what would make up a citizen of England. They are not the same.

Name a president

other than Chester Arthur whose parents weren't American citizens at the time of their birth or grandfathered in under the constitution. People were upset with Arthur not being a natural born citizen so much so, he lost the election.

Simply untrue!!!! The only

Simply untrue!!!! The only citizenship controversy about Arthur was whether he was born in Canada (he wasn't) NOT whether both of his parents were citizens. NOBODY, and I mean nobody, raised that issue during his lifetime.

He didn't get renominated because he did not have strong allies among any the Republican party factions. The issue of citizenship did not enter into it. Here is from Wikipedia:

"Suffering from poor health, Arthur made only a limited effort to secure renomination in 1884; he retired at the close of his term. As journalist Alexander McClure would later write, "No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted as Chester Alan Arthur, and no one ever retired ... more generally respected, alike by political friend and foe."[1

The reason we haven't had more examples is that the presidency has historically been dominated by older-stock men who had ancestors from the UK who had immigrated long ago.

There should NOT be

any conflicting interpretation of this, since precedent was set with Minor vs. Happersett...

See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)

"...(the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution and confirmed that “[a]t 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”)..."

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

WRONG! In Kim Wong Ark,

WRONG! In Kim Wong Ark, which came after Minor v. Happerset, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that birth was sufficient to make a citizen natural born:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Need I also mention that historical precedent is against you. Despite the fact that Chester Arthur had many enemies, Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, made an issue of the widely reported fact that his father was a British subject at the time of Chester's birth. There is also the Obama precedent, of course.

This birther nonsense only makes us look silly.

According to this

attorney (Apuzzo), which is from the same link I gave above, Kim Wong Ark does NOT change the natural born citizen definition. He says:

"...There is only one process or means by which one can be a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., by satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions of birth time (at the moment of birth), birth country (born in the United States), and birth parents (born to U.S. citizen parents). Simply stated, any “born citizen” who does not satisfy these three conditions, while still being a “born citizen” under some legal mechanism (e.g., under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act), is not a “natural born Citizen” under American common law which is the natural law/law of nations-based law that provides the constitutional definition of the clause.

Minor v. Happersett confirms all this and United States v. Wong Kim Ark changes none of it..."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

I am well aware of the Arthur nonsense, although since I wasn't yet born, I cannot confirm that it was widely reported. Just because something happened, does NOT make it right nor lawful. Are you saying because my recent ancestors did not protest, or protested in vain, that I should just tolerate people crapping all over the Constitution? Really? In addition, Minor vs. Happersett occurred long before either of the two things you cite. Minor was the precedent setter!!

Us?? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?? Don't try to put me in any neat little package. I have a mind of my own, and I speak it, whether or not you or anybody else likes it! You will not silence my voice. You may call it birther nonsense. Some may agree with you, and some will not. I don't consider myself a birther, but I would like ALL of the Constitution followed not just the parts that aren't too inconvenient for the current flavor-of-the-month!! And tough darts if you don't like my stance!

Attorney Apuzzo is not the only person whose opinion agrees with my own; I have researched this matter extensively, reading both sides of the issue.

I will continue to harp that Jindal and Rubio are NOT natural born citizens because they are not. Ron Paul has stated that Obama is a natural born citizen, so perhaps he has some inside information. I do know it's been said that Obama's REAL father is Frank Marshall Davis or even Malcolm X...which would change everything, while simultaneously creating other legal issues.

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!