Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat down with Fox News Lara Trump for an extensive discussion on his role and responsibilities in the Trump administration.
In the second segment, Rubio actually touched on something many have been curious about regarding his changed perspectives and positions. It is still annoying that no one has ever asked him directly, ‘why have your views changed so dramatically in the past two years, and/or are you just playing a role.‘
The two video segments and transcript are below:
[Transcript] – QUESTION: Secretary, great to have you back. Thank you so much.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Glad to be back. It’s been a while.
QUESTION: Yeah. There’s so much to talk about, but I want to start with Cuba.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.
QUESTION: This has been of particular interest to the State Department right now. You guys released a 100-page report on Cuba, calling it, “The Capital of 21st Century Communism.” And this report talks about the fact that Cuba’s goal essentially is to erase the United States from the Earth. It also details a Cuban spy network that’s been undermining American interests. How did we get to a place where Cuba has become so much of a threat – it feels like again – to the United States?
SECRETARY RUBIO: I think for those who have followed the issue of Cuba, this is not unfamiliar to us. But to the average American, you see Cuba, a small country 90 miles off our shores, nine and a half million people population. But people forget that when it comes to things like espionage and influence operations, they actually are an influence and espionage superpower. If you look at the history of espionage in the United States, Cuba is the only country that consistently has implanted and embedded spies in our system without even paying them.
We had an ambassador, a U.S. ambassador, who ended up being a Cuban spy and was recently convicted. We’ve had them penetrate the highest levels of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Ana Belén Montes was one of the single biggest intelligence failures on the part of the United States and one of the biggest penetrations we ever had in our system.
So – and then on the influence front, if you look all throughout Latin America, every communist left-wing insurgency that’s destabilized governments across the region, every single one of them over the last 40, 50 years has found its support, its help, in many cases its birth, from a Cuban influence operation. So, it was an important report just to highlight the role they play in our country, a very negative role.
QUESTION: The report also links Cuban influence to the rise in Antifa, the riots that we saw in 2020, as well as the surge of radical activism that we’ve seen all over these college campuses. To the average person, those things, I think, feel generally organic, but it turns out there are a lot of different powers – Cuba being one of them – that are influencing all of these things day to day.
SECRETARY RUBIO: It’s the same network of protesters around the country. They were the same people you saw on the streets burning things in 2020. They then flip it around and they become the pro-Hamas protesters, then they flip it around and within 48 hours of Maduro’s arrest have preprinted signs outside the courthouse demanding his release. And then they’re out there doing the ICE stuff, attacking ICE agents.
There’s nothing organic about it. It is funded, it is organized, and Cuba is a part of that network, and in some cases a critical part of that network. And it’s a network they will weaponize against us, and they talk about it openly, about how they will use that network to pressure American policymakers – not just here in the United States, like Code Pink, but all over the world.
QUESTION: Critics of this report, of course, are saying, oh, well, these are scare tactics to potentially justify some U.S. military action against Cuba. It sounds like this is something we should take seriously, and this report sounds very real.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Everything in there is factual. And frankly, I don’t think they can dispute it. People can argue that we shouldn’t do with it, and I know there are plenty of people in American academia – and frankly in American press – that sympathize with the Cuban regime and have for a very long time. Part of it is motivated by their anti-Americanism, and part of it is motivated by ideological affinity. There are plenty – there are enough people in key nodes of our society, including professors, but frankly, in the past we’ve seen people within our own government, that sympathize with the Cuban regime. It’s the way they get spies without paying them. But it doesn’t mean we can ignore this threat.
Put aside for a moment my history, the fact that I’m Cuban American, the fact that I grew up in Miami. This is 90 miles from our shores. A failed state 90 miles from our shores that happens to be aligned with adversaries to the United States is a national security threat to our country.
QUESTION: I want to move quickly to Venezuela. The interim government and opposition leaders there are taking steps towards a possible future with democratic elections. What role is the United States currently playing, and what can you tell us about Venezuela?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, the first thing about Venezuela is I know we’re not in the era of patience and persistence, but these things take time. You’re dealing with a system that’s been in place for over a quarter-century, so those are deep roots that you have to deal with. It’s also a country that faces a lot of problems, I mean a lot of economic problems, not to mention now they’ve had an earthquake.
So, that’s why we’ve always talked about phase one, where our priority was stabilization. We didn’t want the country devolving into civil war, mass migration, civil unrest, and so forth. Step two is a recovery phase, which I think we’re into. Obviously, the earthquake adds complexity to it. You’ve got to have a functioning economy. You need to have laws and rules and regulations in place so that investors from America and around the world can go in and safely invest and create prosperity.
Ultimately, you have to have transition. At some point in time there has to be legitimate elections at every level so that people know that the government that’s there is a legitimate government chosen by their people. Step one towards that is a national reconciliation. This is a people that have been divided politically for a very long time against each other, and you’re going to have to look at models like what you saw happen in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. I think the role the U.S. Government can continue to play is as a facilitator of all of this.
QUESTION: You’ve been outspoken for many years about the threat from China. President Xi, of course, is going to come visit here in Washington, D.C., in September. You’ve had to sit across the table, though, from China’s foreign minister. You’ve had to negotiate and talk on America’s behalf. How have you found, in this role, negotiating with Beijing?
SECRETARY RUBIO: On the one hand, all the things that China wants to become the most powerful country in the world, and they want to do so at our expense. Obviously, we are Americans; we’re not going to allow that to happen.
At the same time, they are the two most powerful economies in the world, probably the two most powerful militaries in the world, though ours is further along than theirs, but nonetheless. And I think it’s important for two big countries like this, the two most powerful countries in the world, have to have a relationship, have to have the ability to speak to one another and try to deconflict where possible, because it could lead to some really bad things. The foundation of that is the relationship that President Trump has with President Xi, which is a relationship of mutual respect and they get along. And that really is important that our two presidents can speak to one another, and it’s okay. I think it’s almost irresponsible, by the way, to not have direct communications with the Chinese.
We want stability in our relationship. Both sides, I think, recognize that there are areas where we’re not going to agree, and including areas where we’re going to have to compete. Now, there are areas we can work together on. That’s phenomenal, fantastic for the world. But I think there’s going to be a lot of areas of friction and competition, and we have to manage that at the same time as we have to have a relationship with them, but we always have to look out for what’s best for America.
QUESTION: Well, it seems like China has been on their best behavior knowing that President Trump is in the White House, but a lot of people believe that they may just be biding their time in terms of possibly taking over Taiwan. What do you say to that?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I can’t speak 20 or 30 years from now. I can say that our position is we support – we don’t support any change to the current status quo that exists there right now. We would be against any sort of compelled or coerced change in status. That point was made very clear in our meetings with the Chinese. Obviously, they have a very different point of view; it’s a very sensitive issue for them.
So, again, it’s part of that delicate balancing act. Because look, any conflict between the U.S. and China, be it economic or be it military, God forbid, would be catastrophic for both countries and for the world. So, we have to manage that, but we can’t walk away or forfeit our national interests. So, this is the hard work of foreign policy, and it requires every administration to sort of balance these two competing tugs against us.
QUESTION: Well, we hear a lot about tensions with China. We hear a lot about tensions with Russia, with Iran daily. I think Americans probably at some point get very overwhelmed because, unfortunately, the good stuff doesn’t make it out there often enough. What would you say, though, about the stability of the world right now given you’re in your position and the President is who he is?
SECRETARY RUBIO: I think the world has always been complicated and tricky. I think the difference now is if something happens halfway around the world in a place you’ve never heard about before, and it’s really dramatic, you’re going to hear about it almost instantaneously.
I think the world is also going through a period of rapid transformation. I mean, there is clearly a geopolitical reordering that is occurring, and I’ve talked about this repeatedly. We are – after the end of the Cold War, everybody thought the whole world was just going to become free-enterprise democracies and everyone would get along and nation-states would no longer matter. And unfortunately, we made decisions in our foreign policy on that ridiculous basis that actually caused us to hurt our country. We started saying things like we don’t care where things are made, let it be made in another country as long as it’s cheaper prices for America. And it ended up deindustrializing our country and costing us millions of jobs.
So, what you see President Trump doing now is rebalancing those things on the economy using tariffs, on geopolitics using our presence in the world, especially in the Western Hemisphere, our own area neighborhood that we live in.
And then of course there are legacy threats like the Iranian threat of a nuclear program, which can never happen. The President’s been very clear about that. So, you have all the old threats plus the emerging new ones, and they’re all happening at the same time, and they’re happening faster than they ever have before. And it’ll be the work of this administration, but it’ll be the work of future administrations. Some of these things are going to take decades to work themselves out.
(Break.)
QUESTION: And we’re back with more of our exclusive sit-down with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the ongoing conflict in Iran remains top of mind for the American people.
SECRETARY RUBIO: I don’t think the Iranian regime has ever faced a president like President Trump, which is someone that actually takes action. They got used to for 20 or 30 years not just the U.S. but the broader world allowing them to get away with things like lying, breaking deals, tricking people into agreements, and so forth.
In this particular case, it was pretty straightforward. Iran wants a nuclear weapon, and they were building a conventional missile shield that they were going to hide behind. In essence, they wanted to be in a position a year and a half from now to be able to say: We have so many drones and so many missiles, you can’t possibly defend against them.
That’s the place they wanted to get to. President Trump said we’re not – I’m not going to let you get to that place, and he went after – wiped out their navy, wiped out their air force, wiped out their missile defenses, wiped out their launchers, wiped out their factories that make all of these things, and severely degraded their defense capabilities.
Now, they still have missiles and they still have drones and they can still do damage, but they no longer have that shield, that conventional shield that they could hide behind, and that’s changed the whole dynamic. It’s the only reason why they are now willing and in some cases seem eager to do a deal on denuclearization, to do a deal on the straits. Because we’re now approaching them from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness, which is what they perceived from previous administrations and, frankly, from the world writ large.
QUESTION: The regime change has never been the goal, though. As you say, it has been denuclearization. Can you have one without the other, though?
SECRETARY RUBIO: I think what does – the regime has to change. You might not have a regime change, but the regime has to change. The Iranian regime traditionally has been expeditionary. In essence, their view is they don’t want to just govern Iran; they want to govern the region. They view them – they want to export the revolution. That does have to change, and the only way you’re going to change that is if you make the price of it too high for them to be able to pay.
QUESTION: The fact that so many of these Gulf Arab nations have all kind of aligned against Iran, that must be important.
SECRETARY RUBIO: I would say two things about the Middle East and the Gulf – I mean, they’ve always understood who Iran was and the threat they posed. That threat has now become reality. They have now seen Iranian drones and Iranian missiles launched into their cities and against their energy infrastructure.
The other thing that’s changed is I think you’re going to see more and more energy diversifying outside of the Straits of Hormuz, because from a geographic standpoint Iran will always be on the straits, whether they’re governed by this regime or a future government. But that’s going to be two permanent features that are going to emerge from this: You’re going to see the realignment in how energy flows, less reliant on the Straits of Hormuz; and you’re going to countries in the region that are no longer – now understand that Iran is no longer a theoretical threat. As long as this clerical regime remains in place, they are a real threat and a direct threat to their – not just to their economic interests but their security interests.
QUESTION: Well, President Trump says he is going to confront Valdimir Putin regarding reports that Russia helped Iran target U.S. bases. How much does that relationship concern you?
SECRETARY RUBIO: With Russia?
QUESTION: Between Russia and Iran.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Look, unfortunately, I think you’ll find in the world that there are countries, or at least companies within countries, that work with adversaries of ours. And when we identify it, we raise it, and in some cases very successfully.
Nothing we have wanted to do in the Middle East – none of the actions we’ve taken, none of our successes – have in any way been impeded by anything that any other country in the world did against us. There are things that might be irritants, there are things that might be concerning, but there is nothing any other country is doing that in any way is standing in the way of us achieving the things we want to achieve or the objectives we want.
QUESTION: Just to finish with the situation in Russia and Ukraine, is there anything at this point that the U.S. can realistically do to help bring talks together, bring this to an end?
SECRETARY RUBIO: The President has made very clear if United States can play a role in bringing about an end to that war, we’re going to continue to explore it. We spent a lot of time on it in the first year. There came a point where it got to, like, stalemate, but we always stood willing and ready to play a constructive role.
We’re the only country in the world, and President Trump’s the only leader in the world, that can bring the Russian side and the Ukrainian side to begin to talk about how you end it. The reality is that dynamics have changed just a little bit in that conflict over the last few months. The Ukrainians now are able to conduct long-range strikes deep into Russia, bringing the war toward – to the Russian people.
What we are willing to explore is whether that new dynamic has in any way opened the door to some negotiated settlement. I know there’s going to be – you’re going to see some efforts over the next few weeks to see if we can’t restart talks between the two sides and bring this war to an end. But we also understand that both sides have some pretty strong red lines; and until we can bring those red lines a little closer together, we’re not going to be there yet. But we’re ready to go, and the President’s told his team if you see an opportunity to be a force that brings about some momentum behind peace talks, let’s do it. So, he always prefers diplomacy over war and peace over combat.
QUESTION: Americans have seen so many versions of you, I think. We know Senator Rubio, we know candidate Rubio, now Secretary Rubio. Have you changed throughout the course of all of these different kind of phases of your life? And how do you think the American people’s perception of you has changed? Because you are memes everywhere – I think everybody loves to see all the different sides of you.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, well, the meme thing, it was interesting because when it first came out, I hated that picture. (Laughter.) Because what happened is in that couch, if you don’t have a pillow behind your back, you kind of sink. So, I looked at the picture; I said, oh, this is terrible, I looked like whatever. And then it turned into this other thing. And it was fine, and it’s funny. I don’t really follow it very closely, but people have shown me pictures out there. We have a good friend here that works at the White House, Dan Scavino, made a nice board for me. (Laughter.) And even since he made that board, we had to update it, so – of all the different pictures. So that stuff is funny.
You asked me if you’ve changed. I think everybody – you go through life, right? And as you go through life you learn new things, you see things you hadn’t seen before, you hear things you haven’t heard before. Certainly, I am a different person at 55 than I was at 25 or even 35 because I have 20 and 30 years of experience in between – in life and in work – that inform that.
I think at your core you always want to remain the same person, though, right? And that is what are your priorities in life and what are the values that sort of drive you to do what you do, and I hope that hasn’t changed. And by the way, the world changes too. There are things that are true today that weren’t true 10 years ago. So, I think that – that’s true for all of us, not just me.
QUESTION: I feel like you’ve been busier than ever. You’ve been traveling all over the place. But you’re doing all of that while being a husband, while being a father. Maybe talk about how that is, because I know for every kind of working parent out there, working spouse, it’s hard to take time, but I am sure your family keeps you very active.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, it is, and I’m in an interesting season in life. For most of my time in public service, I had very young children or children that were still growing up. Now all four of my children are adults. My youngest graduated high school this year. I have a 26-year-old, a 24-year-old, a 21-year-old, and an 18-year-old. So, they have lives. They don’t just have – when you’re 15 or 16, you have opinions. When you get to 20, 24, 26, you have lives and you have stuff going on. I still look back at the time that they were young and wish I could have one more day with them when they were little, but you also appreciate the moment you live in.
And then as far as being a husband, I think what’s happened is, because your kids are a little older and they have more time doing their own things, whether their school or their career, you spend more time with your – you almost, like, get back to where you were when you first started dating in some ways. So, you get to spend more time with my wife and sort of rediscover. So, it’s the second phase of that relationship, I guess, after all these years.
So it’s an interesting season in life that I think we’re – mixing with what we’re doing here now – and find it pretty fulfilling and pretty happy.
QUESTION: Well, when you go home, I’m curious: What is the first thing you do when Marco Rubio gets home? Do you sleep? What happens?
SECRETARY RUBIO: (Laughter.) No, not when I get home. I don’t go right to sleep. Of course not. Usually, I mean, if you can – you really can’t in this job, and you certainly can’t working for this administration and this President, who never stops working, but I think it is good to try to disconnect for some period of time from your job or from your work. It could be watching a sporting event, it could be watching a movie, just anything that allows you to sort of disconnect and play the reset button.
It’s harder – it was a lot easier to do that when you’re a senator. It’s much harder when you’re in this role and in this job, because the world isn’t going to stop and wait for you. Like, you may want – you may have made a plan tonight to watch a movie, but in the middle of that movie something blows up somewhere in the world, and you’ve got to know about it and you may have to do something about it. So, it’s harder, but it’s not forever, and it’s fulfilling to be in that role.
QUESTION: So, if you could get a full week off without having anyone access you, what would you do?
SECRETARY RUBIO: If I had a full week off, I’d be wondering what was going on. I’m being honest, and maybe that’ll change when I’m out of this job. But if I could – like, if I could make the world stop for a minute and have nothing going on, I’d love to –
QUESTION: Yeah, (inaudible).
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, my wife’s going to hate this answer, but I’d love to sit down and, like, watch, like, every college football game starting at noon Eastern until one – when the West Coast games end at 2:00 a.m. our time Eastern. I’d love to be able to do that at least one weekend. I doubt I’ll be able to do that anytime soon.
QUESTION: Okay. Final question: Is this going to be the Miami Dolphins season? What do we think?
SECRETARY RUBIO: No.
QUESTION: (Laughter.)
SECRETARY RUBIO: No, they’re in massive rebuilding mode, but I think the needle is pointing in the right direction, but they need a couple years to rebuild that roster.
QUESTION: Okay. We’re always looking to future seasons.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, that’s right.
QUESTION: Well, Secretary Marco Rubio, you are great.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks for all you do for our country, and thank you so much for your time.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Thank you. Thank you.
[END TRANSCRIPT]

Smart people constantly change opinions and strategies based on new information and wisdom.
Sycophants with power are dangerous. Sycophants without power are annoying and distracting.
Correct. I was thinking about his remark “you want to remain the same person…”.
I’m so glad I’m NOT the same person I was 10 and 20 years ago.
I hope I continue to change and that it’s always an improvement.
Not crazy about more wrinkles and less hair, though.
If the madness of COVID and then like a snap pivot – we support Ukraine! – didn’t demonstrate we are in an ocean of propaganda, nothing will.
But is the ‘same person’ the one that was hinged at the hip with the Intelligence Community? You know the ones who ran a coup against a Sitting President of the United States of America?
Is he the same person that sponsored legislation to the 2024 NDAA that made it more difficult for a president to withdraw from NATO, knowing Trump was likely to get a second term? Is he still that guy?
I remain skeptical but am willing to believe that he’s changed, but he needs to spell it out for us, about his role in the coup against Trump 45.
I have had that same thought since he was named SofS
Totally unrelated… Have you ever seen puppet strings tied to a hot tub?
And yet, what I heard him say was that of course he was different at age 25 and 35 than he is now at age 55, because you’ve had more years of life and experience, but ‘you want to remain the same core person’.
Yup, thankfully we’re not the exact same person we were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60….years ago, because it would mean we’ve learned and experienced nothing more than the same thing each year.
And, hey now, I enjoy all my scars and wrinkles that show I’ve experienced life and give me more ‘character’! As for the hair part, I get a buzz cut, don’t worry about it, and enjoy not having to waste time and energy on drying or combing it!
Besides, when we men get older we actually do grow a lot more hair–unfortunately it is all in our nostrils, ears, and eyebrows!!! <chuckles>
I don’t see it as a positive that he wants to remain that same person..
This says all we need to know.
I’m having flash-backs right now of the horrible problems we had with John McCain and his side-kick Marco Rubio.
Is that the core person he still is, that person?
“I think at your core you always want to remain the same person, though, right? And that is what are your priorities in life and what are the values that sort of drive you to do what you do, and I hope that hasn’t changed. And by the way, the world changes too. There are things that are true today that weren’t true 10 years ago. So, I think that – that’s true for all of us, not just me.”
Yes, core values.
I do not see “core values “ with JD.
JD is still trying to figure out what his values are and where he stands.
JD is young and lacks maturity and experience.
I agree, your chore is thr same… values, integrity, dependable etc. Some of your ideas and goals change with more knowledge.
John McCain’s bestie was Lindsey Graham. They were both ready to go to war with Iran 18 years ago.
Same person can refer to core values or principles. I am much different in some ways than in my youth, but the core beliefs haven’t changed.
Remain teachable
None of this would be an issue if these politicians weren’t there for 40+ years spanning their entire adult lives until the day they drop dead..
Doing this was not what the founders designed for us at all.. and it’s the roots of why so much is FUBAR.
I would say that the overwhelming majority of these Swampers are there because of all the various forms of voter fraud and not because they have been legitimately voted in -for decades.
Excellent two paragraphs.
Reagan changed – nobody questioned him, his core remained.
Keynes was once asked why he changed his opinions, his answer was the definitive for all time: ‘when the facts change, I change — what do You do?’ (paraphrased)
Audrey Hepburn said the most difficult thing for any person to do is see themselves as others see them. The ability to be ‘brutally honest’ with oneself (appearance or character) is necessary for success in life.
The paragraph about sycophantic behavior applies to … everyone!
When people tell you who they are, listen !!
When I see new stuff going on but that “core person” is still there, that tells me all I need to know about what I’m looking at today.
Which core person? the 2016 primary Rubio? The Intel committee lifetime member Rubio? I feel for a week spoken secretary of state before. He looked like he was doing a great job and was MAGA aligned. Pompeo was fooling us all along.
I like this Rubio. I just have doubts that it’s the real Rubio. I also wonder why the swamp isn’t attacking him.
The same goes for smart voters. Many of the most astute thinkers and voters were once looking at things differently. It’s been cycles through time. You are different at different stages in life.
I believe Rubio of the gang of 8 is no more.
There are some clubs you are not allowed to leave. You can probably think of a few organizations that are like this. If you try to leave, the come for you as you have betrayed them and they will not stop until you are done.
Rubio was a standard member of that deep state intelligence club. He gets no attacks from his former colleagues. None to speak of from the media.
When the media is not attacking someone in Trump orbit and you are not asking why? Either you know why or you forgot what these people are like.
The Capital of 21st Century Communism is the DSA-controlled “Democrat” party.
My personal opinion is that he’s a puppet that doesn’t want to be a puppet anymore. With Trump his strings are cut and he can do his own thing.
“I’m here to kill Mr. Fukushima.” -Killer7
Huh???
I think that him and Bessent saw the “other side”, blended in for
their own self protection, and then went the other way when it was
safer. I like to think that both of them are aiming at redemption.
My deep concern is Rubio is a Cuban sleeper cell….other than that he is shining in his new role as SOS.
Sycophant; 2nd Peter 2:18 says “great swelling words of vanity” to allure people through the lusts of the flesh.
I like his thoughtful pragmatism. He is measured in his responses and is easily understood.
I really like this man as a future President.
I agree that Rubio has changed tremendously and that he is doing a wonderful job as SoS. However, there is one thing he cannot change. He was not born a natural born citizen, and he can never change that fact. Therefore, he cannot ever legally serve as president or vice president.
Please define who a “Natural Born Citizen” is under United States law. Not as defined in the Law of Nations at our founding but under US Law.
Perhaps this should be a request for definition to the Supreme Court ahead of the next Presidential election.
To have “Standing” before the court one must have been harmed or affected by the motion before the court. You can’t just ask for a legal “definition”. Based on my research in 2008, until someone is elected and a case brought through the court system the Supremes will refuse to accept the case.
Two conclusions I am left with are:
1) The Supreme Court will be very reluctant to nullify a Presidential Election based on citizenship unless that person were an out and out non US Citizen.
2) Our court system prides itself on “president”. Based on 2008 alone it can claim “Citizen by Birth”, well defined by Congress in US citizenship law, as filling the Constitutional requirement for Natural Born. There is ample president for such a position.
In Rubio’s case “Anchor Baby” would also have to qualify as Natural Born. And, yes, based on what I have seen over the past year and a half I would vote for him in a heartbeat!
Nevermind…
.
Your Point 2 is indecipherable.
There is a whole set of citizens at birth; contained in that whole set is the CLOSED sub-set of natural born citizens.
Our founders were logical people — thus, a grasp of logic is necessary to understand their writings . . .
All righty then.
Try “precedent” instead of “president”.
The court system prides itself in overruling the President. I think the word you are looking for was precedent.
In point 2 you mean “precedent” obviously.
That John Jay, after seeing a 1st draft of the Constitution that only said “born citizen”, wrote a letter to Washington that it should be changed to “natural born citizen” and it was changed without any squawking that we know of suggests a clear understanding at the time. Also, Vattel’s Law of Nations is most certainly where the definition is laid out. See:http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/article_II.html
You are on the right track.
The Constitutional Scholars around me have all stated in their own ways that when one looks at many other things the spirit of what they were doing is very clear: they didn’t want us to have a President that is a foreigner or even a first generation American..unless those parents were legal US Citizens, which meant a whole lot back then- this is why the status of the parents mattered.
One only has to look forward at how we vetted the people at Ellis Island to see how our people of that era were working to create the population that we’d then have– we all know they wanted only people that would fully become Americans (Largely white Europeans at that time but look at what we did !!)
Most of them even left their own foreign names behind and took on an Americanized version.
Today they won’t even leave their flag and their language back home.
What the Framers were doing is clear when you look at the whole picture.. and this mentality stuck with our people well into the days of trying to build our population at Ellis Island..
We were certainly not opening our border and taking what we got, and then electing these people.
There is no such law because no such law is needed. All that is needed is a clear understanding of what the Famers knew to be the term’s meaning when they made it one (the most important) of the Constitution’s three presidential requirements and why they did so.
That understanding is available to anyone who wishes to learn and is willing to seek the truth. I believe that describes you.
A good start can be found at the link below…
vattel-defines-nbc-in-french-and-correct-english-translation.pdf
Thank you for your honest interest in this most important issue.
Besides, Congress only has the Constitutional authority “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”
By the very definition of “natural;” without which the term “natural born citizen” can have no meaningful meaning, the Constitution thereby negates any possibility of Congress making law relating to citizenship other than via naturalization law because any form of citizenship granted by Congress cannot possibly be natural.
Say, Jess, don’t twist yourself in knots over this. I said I would vote for him “Anchor Baby” or not.
Sorry, even though I agree with most of your comments about NBC, I believe anyone who is willing to vote for ANY non-natural born citizen for president or vice president is just as wrong as all those who wrongfully voted for Obama…
I sincerely hope you reconsider, sir.
Doing that is simply aiding and abetting the violation of the Constitution by their constitutionally ineligible candidate of choice. Furthermore; any member of the military who does so is also personally in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.
.
Our Constitution states that there shall be citizens AND natural born citizens.
It also confirms that one is either a citizen OR a natural born citizen.
It further designates Congress as the deciders of naturalization, which is defined as the conferment of citizenship.
Congress has indeed designated whom shall be citizens through various Naturalization laws. Hence, a person born in this country to one citizen parent and one resident parent is defined to be a ‘citizen at birth’.
Congress has also instituted the naturalization process by which foreigners can petition to be citizens. We call these persons naturalized citizens, but the truth is, whomever is a citizen by virtue of an act of Congress IS a naturalized citizen. Those who do not have to ‘be’ naturalized via the naturalization process nonetheless attained citizenship due to an act of Congress.
Have you gained a hint, yet, as to why Congress cannot ‘define’ natural born citizenship?
One is either a citizen OR a natural born citizen.
Natural born citizens are those of us born int these United States to citizen parents. What else could we be but citizens of this country, which Congress has no authority to bestow their blessings as to our Citizenship?
Rubio was born in Miami-Dade.
https://easternherald.com/person/marco-rubio-nationality/
But neither of his parents were US citizens at the time he was born. That would make him an “Anchor Baby”. Do you want to stretch that into “Natural Born”?
The solitary fact that someone is born on US soil does not make them a natural born citizen. Attaining that status also requires being born to two US citizen parents. Unfortunately, neither of Rubio’s parents were citizens at the moment he was born.
Rubio’s parents became citizens in 1956. Rubio was born in 1978. My common understanding of “Natural born” is having citizenship status at birth and not needing a naturalized process later. Rubio’s parents were citizens when Rubio was born in Miami so his citizenship was automatic at birth. That is what happened.
If a person is “naturalized” to citizenship they are ineligible to be president or vice-president. Rubio was a citizen at birth.
Correction, my dates are wrong.
Rubio was born in 1971. His parents became residents in 1956.
I know…
In order to be a natural born citizen, one must be born on US soil to two US citizen parents. As you know, neither of Rubio’s parents were US citizens at the moment he was born. Therefore, he can never be a natural born citizen and can never legally serve as president or vice president.
“In order to be a natural born citizen, one must be born on US soil to two US citizen parents.”
Unless one of his parents is a citizen of the UK Colony of Kenya!
Re “Unless one of his parents is a citizen of the UK Colony of Kenya!”
Totally irrelevant to the definition of NBC.
Chewing on sour grapes while promoting a non-natural born citizen as a legitimate presidential candidate and/or actually voting for the same will not change the fact that Obama, like OJ Simpson, skirted the law. We The People are supposed to be better than that!
Interesting. I wasn’t aware they were citizens when he was born.
My understanding has always been they were not citizens when he was born. Making him a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. His parents would have needed to be citizens at the time of his birth. So, I guess that needs to be clarified.
The US Supreme Court clarified that in the process of ruling on Minor v. Happersett in 1875. They cited the same definition cited by Vattel in his book, Laws of Nations.
The way they reached their decision to cite that particular definition made that definition legal precedent; meaning, no US court at any level could thereafter legally cite any other in deciding a case.
If you do your research, you will find that since Minor v. Happersett, no Federal Court has cited any other definition for that reason. In fact, the SCOTUS has used that same definition several times and no other.
The definition in question is, “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
You can find that definition in § 212. Citizens and natives of Vattel’s work at the link below: The-Law-of-Nations-or-the-Principles-of-Natural-Law-(1758)Emmeric.pdf
A much more detailed explanation of the true meaning of that definition can be found here… vattel-defines-nbc-in-french-and-correct-english-translation.pdf
I’m so glad I’m finally not the only one here saying all this.
I have been preaching it at every opportunity ever since I first started frequenting this wonderful site many years ago and usually, with rare exception, the only one doing so. So, I also greatly appreciate your support on this topic.
I was not aware that Vattel’s definitions had been encoded into US law. I don’t recognize the case you cite. It’s been almost 18 years since I did the research in 2008. I’ll check it out.
But just to be the eternal SA, I point out our 44th President had only one US citizen parent. The other being Kenian.
They were not!
As per Grok:
Marco Rubio’s parents, Mario Rubio Reina and Oriales (née García) Rubio, immigrated legally from Cuba to the United States as permanent residents on May 27, 1956 (before Fidel Castro took power in 1959). They remained permanent residents for nearly two decades and naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975—about four years after Marco Rubio was born in Miami in 1971.
Contemporary reporting (including from Politico based on naturalization documents and the parents’ petitions) confirms they waited until 1975 to naturalize, which was not uncommon. On the petition, Mario (then a bartender) affirmed he had never been a Communist Party member; he appeared for his hearing at Barry College Auditorium at 9 a.m. on November 5, 1975, and left as a citizen. Sources consistently state both parents became citizens that year.
Note: Earlier accounts sometimes inaccurately described their arrival as post-1959 “exile,” but records show the 1956 permanent-resident entry; Rubio later acknowledged the arrival-date discrepancy while emphasizing the family’s later inability to return permanently to Cuba.
They were not!
As per Grok:
Marco Rubio’s parents, Mario Rubio Reina and Oriales (née García) Rubio, immigrated legally from Cuba to the United States as permanent residents on May 27, 1956 (before Fidel Castro took power in 1959). They remained permanent residents for nearly two decades and naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975—about four years after Marco Rubio was born in Miami in 1971.
Contemporary reporting (including from Politico based on naturalization documents and the parents’ petitions) confirms they waited until 1975 to naturalize, which was not uncommon. On the petition, Mario (then a bartender) affirmed he had never been a Communist Party member; he appeared for his hearing at Barry College Auditorium at 9 a.m. on November 5, 1975, and left as a citizen. Sources consistently state both parents became citizens that year.
Note: Earlier accounts sometimes inaccurately described their arrival as post-1959 “exile,” but records show the 1956 permanent-resident entry; Rubio later acknowledged the arrival-date discrepancy while emphasizing the family’s later inability to return permanently to Cuba.
That train left the Station with Obama. It is a moot point.
Certainly this is not the man who campaigned against President Trump in 2015 nor the man who was cast out of the Tea Party over his stance on amnesty.
Rubio is a supportive cabinet secretary…perhaps he is an enigma to even himself once he loses that identity.
Will make a great VP for eight years, and assuming he keeps learning, a great president for another eight. No more democrat presidents….
Are you aware that Rubio is not a natural born citizen? He cannot ever legally serve as president or vice president.
Are you sure about that?
He is wrong. See my post below replying to Lokiscout.
100%! In order to be a natural born citizen of the United States, one must be born on US soil to two US citizen parents. Neither of his parents were US citizens when he was born.
Rubio was born in Miami FL in 1971
Yes he was, to parents that were not US Citizens.
Just because you are here legally, this doesn’t then automatically make you a US Citizen.
He was born in Miami
In order to attain the status of being a natural born citizen, he must also have been born to two US citizen parents.
Click here>>> http://www.kerchner.com/vattel/vattel-defines-nbc-in-french-and-correct-english-translation.pdf
He is 100% eligible to serve as POTUS. Anything to the contrary is loonyville propaganda.
In order to be a natural born citizen, one must be born on US soil to two US citizen parents,
Click here for details…. http://www.kerchner.com/vattel/vattel-defines-nbc-in-french-and-correct-english-translation.pdf
He was born and raised in Miami to legal immigrant parents and constitutionally has been declared eligible in numerous legal challenges to serve as President.
They never give up.
Being legal immigrants doesn’t then make them US Citizens.
The Constitutional requirements are clear.
Marco was born in Miami to LEGAL immigrants and as such is a US citizen. As I said, there have been numerous court cases confirming Marco is eligible to serve as POTUS.
Those legal decisions are based on our constitution, so maybe you should clear your head of this nonsense. When you spew this ignorant BS you do it to the detriment of Sundance and his efforts to inform people of facts.
Where are these challenges, post the links please.
Because we covered all this in depth here in NH during our Primary process when he ran the first time and we found Rubio ineligible. We learned the same exact thing about Ted Cruz and Kamala Harris.
Just because you are here legally, this doesn’t make you automatically a US Citizen- why is this so hard to understand?
We have MANY foreign students and workers here in the US legally, they don’t magically then become US Citizens just because they are here legally as workers or students.
The Constitution does not define “Natural Born Citizen” but Congress has. Read my reply to Loki below
And what has the Supreme Court ruled on this?
See my reply to you below.
Re: The Constitution does not define “Natural Born Citizen”
So what? The Constitution is not a dictionary; so, its purpose is not to define terms/words…
Re: but Congress has…
Not true! Congress has never done so! Besides, Congress cannot autonomously define the term “natural born citizen” because the term is constitutionally established and has never been explicitly defined by the Supreme Court.
Citation:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
.
Citation, please, as to your latter assertion (‘Congress has’).
Citation:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Thank you. What everyone once understood, is completely ignored now.
Just as many people are under the misconception that a foreigner that marries a U.S. citizen automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. That is incorrect, the foreign – born spouse has an accelerated process available to them to acquire citizenship. I can think of one person that eschewed the “fast track” and went through the normal citizenship process: Melania Trump.
As to Harris, her parents were both legally in the U.S. on student visas at the time of her birth (as an aside, I share my birthdate with her: 10/20/1964 🤮). Shyamala Golopan never acquired citzenship, Donald Harris did… in 2005. The fact that Dad finally became a U.S. citizen cannot be applied retroactively/ex post facto.
Something to chew on… There are those who want Don Jr. or Eric to throw their hats into the presidential ring however there is a snag: Ivana Trump did not become a U.S. citizen until 1988. Eric, the youngest of her children, was born in 1984. There is the possibility that Barron is ineligible depending on the timing between Melania’s naturalization and his birth. That leaves Tiffany as the sole PDJT child that is an NBC.
Kamala Harris’s mother’s student visa was expired at the time of her birth.
Re “There is the possibility that Barron is ineligible depending on the timing between Melania’s naturalization and his birth.”
Our wonderful First Lady did not become a naturalized US citizen until about 6 months after she gave birth to Barron; which excludes him from being a natural born citizen. So, he is not constitutionally eligible to be president or vice president.
Re “That leaves Tiffany as the sole PDJT child that is an NBC.”
Correct.
But I guess if Melania were Kenyan …???
Thank God! Finally, a voice of reason and truth enters the conservation!
We vet these candidates very carefully here in NH when they run in our Primary and I sat through many a dry and deeply wordy meeting with the Constitutionalists about Marco, Ted Cruz and then Kamala, of course the Democrats didn’t even like Kamala anyway- they sent her home first with less than 2% of the vote, which as we can see didn’t matter one bit.
The very first place we start is if they are even qualified to become President !!
To me, and to many of us, that they even run when they know they aren’t qualified speaks volumes.
Their first decision in running is dishonest.
In order to be a natural born citizen, one must be born on US soil to two US citizen parents. Being “legal immigrant parents” is definitely not the same as US citizen parents.
BS. What if the parents are US citizens, go to Canada on vacation and have a child? Not natural born but still eligible to be president I think most people would agree.
Obama’s presidency made this a moot point.
Congress, who has sole jurisdiction Constitutionally over “matters of immigration and citizenship” has never defined what a “Natural Born Citizen” is. If you are thinking of the definition from The Law of Nations recognized at our founding remember there have been 6 times in our history it was ignored. The most recent of course being 2008 and again in 2012.
I suspect you are correct because as I understand Secretary Rubio can’t even claim “Citizen by Birth” since neither of his parents were citizens when he was born. Electing a naturalized citizen seems a bit too far.
Congress has defined “Natural Born Citizen” in 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”…
The Supreme Court just ruled that children of immigrants are “subject to the Juristiction thereof”
He is eligible, is a Natural Born Citizen and will be unless Congress changes the law.
Link to US code:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
The ultimate decision lies with the Supreme Court not Congress.
The USSC just ruled that children born on US soil by immigrants are natural born citizens by virtue of being under the jurisdiction of the US which coincidently matches the language in the law referenced above. The decision has already been made by them.
They won’t rule again. If, on the outside chance they do, they will refer to their most recent ruling on the subject of natural born citizen. In this case that ruling and US code above favor Rubio’s status as natural born.
Congress has to change the law to more specifically define “under the juristiction of” if you want a different outcome and what it currently means to be natural born i.e. your citizenship status at birth.
The Supreme Court ruled that they are CITIZENS not Natural Born Citizens and given that the Constitution is clear in that requirement, this language matters.
AI Overview
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that children born on U.S. soil to parents who are undocumented or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather than making them “now” citizens by a new rule, the Court upheld the long-standing interpretation of the Constitution. Supreme Court of the United States (.gov)
+3
However:
Executive summary
The Supreme Court has never issued a definitive, on-the-merits ruling that defines “natural born citizen” for presidential eligibility, and therefore it has not squarely held that naturalized citizens can or cannot serve as President [1][2]. Lower-court rulings, longstanding Supreme Court language, and scholarly consensus generally treat naturalized citizens as ineligible, but legal ambiguity remains on edge cases and the question has not been authoritatively resolved by the Court [3][4][5].
1. The constitutional requirement and the judicial silence
Article II requires a “natural born Citizen” to be President, but the Constitution does not define that phrase, and the Supreme Court has never directly decided a presidential-eligibility case to establish a binding definition [2][1]. Multiple authoritative summaries and Congressional Research Service reports note this absence of a controlling Supreme Court pronouncement and record the resulting legal uncertainty [2][1].
2. What the Supreme Court has said that points against naturalized eligibility
Although not a direct holding on presidential eligibility, several Supreme Court opinions and passages treat native-born and naturalized citizens as distinct for certain offices or rights; for example, the Court has used language implying that only native-born persons may be President, and it has stated that a naturalized citizen “stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency” (Luria), language relied on by scholars and courts to treat naturalized citizens as presumptively ineligible [3][4].
5. Practical consequence under current Supreme Court precedent
Because the Supreme Court has not squarely decided a presidential-eligibility case, there is no binding Supreme Court precedent that affirms a naturalized person’s right to be President; the practical effect is that naturalized citizens remain widely treated as ineligible under prevailing interpretations and certain Supreme Court language, but an authoritative, controlling ruling is absent and could change the legal landscape if the Court takes a case [3][2][1]. In short: current Supreme Court precedent has not cleared the path for naturalized citizens to run; it also has not issued a single definitive opinion that would close all avenues of argument.
Natural born vs naturalized.
Natural born is your citizenship status at birth.
Naturalized citizens go through a process after birth to become citizens. You highlighed naturalized above.
The courts ruling allowed any immigrants born on US soil to be classified as citizens. Not their parents and not the children that came with them but those born on US soil. That was the whole birth right citizenship. The key word being birth.
Read the US code defining natural born citizen. It says nothing about the parents it only says under the juristiction of same as the 14th amendment.
The Constitution itself only says the President must be natural born citizen.
.
Your third sentence is fallacious.
Any person who became a citizen by virtue of an act of Congress IS a naturalized citizen.
It can be confusing, I grant you, due to the process of foreigners in becoming citizens having that procedure deemed Naturalization. (Note the difference in capitalization.)
.
Ok. I see your citation.
But your rationale for claiming what you are claiming it means does not pass muster.
‘Your citizenship status at birth’ does NOT equate to natural born citizenship.
You are conflating being ‘native born’, I.e. relating to the PLACE you were born, with being ‘natural born’ I.e., relating to WHOM you were born to . . .
Where in any statute or in the Constitution itself does it say natural born refers to who your parents are.
Citations please.
And status at birth is exactly what natural born means vs naturalized which is citizenship sometime later in life.
This is helpful too
https://usconstitution.net/natural-born-citizen-and-presidential-eligibility/
.
See my comment in the above thread which originated by ‘CTHFan’.
The founders’ logic is necessary to understand what the Constitution is ‘saying’.
Why input a clause about ‘citizens being eligible to be president during the beginning years’ of our country if natural born citizens were supposedly available according to your way of thinking.
I agree with you but what is actually in writing and what is actually in the law and what the Supreme Court did with birth right citizenship is what we have to live with. The USSC mucked up the works with their birth right ruling.
The positive side is the language in the statute and the language in the 14th amendment: “under the jurisdiction of” are the same and that phrase can be clarified by Congress by updating the law to mean what the founders intended concerning natural born citizens without causing a Constitutional crisis.
I believe Kavanaugh alluded to Congress having the ability to fix this.
I’m not happy either but it’s the reality of the situation.
.
IF AN ACT OF CONGRESS (a law) CONFERRED CITIZEN STATUS TO A PERSON, THEN THAT PERSON IS A CITIZEN.
What you are claiming they did was to completely do away with the notion of ‘natural born citizen’.
Why you seem to be stuck on this is your insistence on saying that a native born citizen is the equivalent to a natural born citizen.
Here’s a hint:
Everyone on this earth is a natural born person.
Everyone on this earth is NOT a native to these United States.
That citizenship is at issue, is the puzzle piece.
Re “The USSC just ruled that children born on US soil by immigrants are natural born citizens…”
Again, other than the 6 times the SCOTUS cited “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” as the definition of NBC, that court has never once mentioned the term “natural born citizen” including in the case wherein you are erroneously claiming it defined NBC.
Besides, the only type of citizenship Congress has any power under the Constitution to grant is via naturalization law and any time a person is granted citizenship via naturalization law, that alone excludes that person from being a natural born citizen. Granted by law and natural are inherently opposite in meaning.
Re “Congress has to change the law to more specifically define “under the juristiction of” if you want a different outcome and what it currently means to be natural born i.e. your citizenship status at birth.”
Jeez! Congress cannot even legally define a term established by the Constitution and that the SCOTUS has already made legal precedent the same definition cited by Vattel!
Did the Constitution define natural born?
Neither 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute nor the Supreme Court mentioned the term “natural born citizen” in the case you cited. In fact, the only times the SCOTUS has ever mentioned that term, it used the very same definition cited by Vattel; which is “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Please note that the plural of citizen is used; which clearly means two parents.
Therefore, paraphrased in more modern terms for clarity of meaning when NBC is being discussed specifically as it relates to the USA, the definition is “those born on US soil to two US citizen parents.”
Citations of either the US statute or the wording in the Constitution that says what you claim in your last paragraph.
So by your read anyone born on US soil is a Natural Born citizen and eligible to become president.
Interesting.
Re “If you are thinking of the definition from The Law of Nations…”
Of course I’m thinking of the definition cited by Vattel! It is a proven fact that the Framers had in hand and referred to Vattel’s book titled “The Law of Nations.” It is also a fact that the US Supreme Court cited that same definition in Minor v Happersett in a way that made it legal precedent making it the only definition any US Court could legally use in the process of deciding any case.
It is also true that the SCOTUS has cited that same definition in deciding different cases and has never once cited any other.
Re “there have been 6 times in our history it was ignored.”
Being ignored in practice does not negate its factual nature… We do not ignore laws against murder just because OJ got away with committing that crime and six times ignored does not negate the 6 times Vattel’s definition was cited by the SCOUTUS as the one and only correct and legal definition of NBC.
Wrong.
As if that will be enforced after Obama.
.
Since that liar is not prone to truth-telling, how do we know who his biological parents were?
Not again, please.
He is 4th in the line of succession to become President in the case of some catastrophic event. If he can’t become President, how do you square this?
Rubio can legally run for President, but I don’t think we would see him do that for at least 3-4 terms.
He’s going to let the stink of this administration go away first and hope people forget certain things.
No one will forget
–“He’s going to let the stink of this administration go away”–
We obviously have different olfactory receptors.
Care to share which administration(s) you found to have an alluring aroma?
So funny! LOL!!! You should quit your day job and do this for a living!
Forget what???
That stink is your upper lip
Always come away impressed with Mr. Rubio after listening to him speak.
“It is still annoying that no one has ever asked him directly, ‘why have your views changed so dramatically in the past two years, and/or are you just playing a role.’”
I would love to see someone ask Secretary Rubio that direct question, and to hear him give a direct answer.
Unfortunately, Lara Trump danced around the question and Secretary Rubio gave a very vague “we all mature with age” kind of answer.
I think Secretary Rubio has done a magnificent job as Secretary of State. I would still like to hear him give a direct answer to the question of why he doesn’t act or speak like a UniParty apparatchik anymore.
I’m especially curious because the establishment UniParty doesn’t attack him like they did to Tulsi or Hegseth.
“why he doesn’t act or speak like a UniParty apparatchik anymore.”
Any answer to that is to admit he was a UA. It would be like someone asking you “Have you stopped beating your wife Bruce? “
There’s not one politician who isn’t a disgusting piece of trash.
Enjoy cheerleading your forever war.
5 months is forever?
Well bless your heart.
Cut him some slack, Bruce. You know the old cliche … “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him THink” Ironically, that’s exactly what the Socialist Democrats and their ‘forever war’ talking points want.
I thought it was , “You can lead a ‘ho’ to culture, but you can’t make her think!”
Skipped right over “quagmire” straight to “forever” in only 5 months.
Quagmire was last weeks topic word.
The poster just got this weeks tip sheet.
Wonder how he fit it in his rectum so he could read it.
Not one?
Really?
How sad that your brain actually comes to this conclusion……
I observe SOS Rubio over tbe years and I see a different person, certainly different than the once brand spanking new Tea Party conservative; certainly different than the apparent Rino Gang of Eight suspected turncoat. I see a depth of intelligence and leadership that seems unique from most of congress. I will, however, continue to watch carefully.
Marco has come up through the political ranks, exposed to level after level of intelligence.
Marco put himself in a position of power.
Marco saw the rot in the world at a level most have no comprehension of.
As Uncle Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility.
My understanding is that Marco was raised well and has morals.
There is a lack of moral in DC.
From my perspective, Marco is doing great work for the world.
he has proven to be a real revelation.
president trump got that one right.
this country is better having marco rubio as sec of state.
Excellent interviewer and interviewee.
‘why have your views changed so dramatically in the past two years, and/or are you just playing a role.‘
If the change in his views are genuine, I would not be surprised if there is a religious aspect to it.? 🤔
His views have not changed, his benefactors have. When you rely on donors for the millions required to win office, you have to champion their views. His current benefactor is DJT, so he represents DJT’s policy goals. Once the DJT administration is over, Rubio will once again seek funding if he wishes to pursue elected office, at which time he will once again champion the views of those donors.
Sundance – are we drilling down on these re-tweets? A couple seem a little off.
I’m so impressed with him and thrilled that he’s in the position that he’s in. He’s smart, speaks so succinctly, has a firm grip on all the players and their history and it’s a joy to listen to him.
Rubio has done an amazing job and I believe he demands and gets respect with whomever he deals with.
Sundance, I so appreciate the transcripts you prepare.
Thank you for all the hard work and research.
@ Sundance… Re “It is still annoying that no one has ever asked him directly, ‘why have your views changed so dramatically in the past two years, and/or are you just playing a role.’”
I agree that is a very important question. Another is, “Do you still believe that a non-natural born citizen like yourself can legally serve as president; and, do you plan to run again despite the fact that you cannot ever meet the constitutionally mandated requirement regarding that status?”
Unfortunately, the ‘Black Jesus’ Kenyan did serve for 2 terms and NO ONE in a position of authority seriously questioned the Constitutionally mandated ‘natural born’ requirement. Doesn’t mean that it’s right but……….who is going to legally challenge him since it has already been done and precedent has been set??
Re “Unfortunately, the ‘Black Jesus’ Kenyan did serve for 2 terms and NO ONE in a position of authority seriously questioned the Constitutionally mandated ‘natural born’ requirement.”
If we, as a citizenry, leave it up to people “in a position of authority” to do our job, we’re as good as defeated already.
Re “precedent has been set…”
If everyone took that attitude when OJ got away with murder, murderers would no longer be arrested, tried and convicted. By your logic, that would be just fine, and we should just accept all the murders, rapes and muggings committed by illegals.
And yet the ‘Black Jesus’ did serve 2 terms and not a damn thing was done regarding his legal standing to do so. Not by ANYONE, including the ‘citizens’. As for ‘precedent’, it was a question. Tell me, who would have standing? You? Me? That guy behind the tree? If you haven’t noticed, precedent is/has been utilized for many judicial rulings up to and including the SC. I didn’t say any of this is right, it is just the present state of things. Let me know when real changes become apparent…..
.
Don’t re-write history.
Plenty of people challenged Obama’s eligibility.
Further, we really do not know his true status as to this eligibility requirement because what we do know is that he is a natural born liar . . .
O yes, the ‘keyboard challenge warriors’ and certain media personalities who raised concerns. However, where were the legal challenges, the ‘concerned’ politicians who are sworn to uphold the WHOLE Constitution? Obama served 2 full terms with an unknown eligibility with nary a concern about the legality of his eligibility. Whether folks like it or not, the Black Jesus has set a precedent for presidential eligibility, especially for ‘natural born liars’…….you know, like most Politicians.
.
My take is not that a precedent has been set: rather, it is that our populace — if in fact they were told the truth re: Obama’s origination story (which I do not believe they were) — voted to do away with the whole Constitution, thus, initiating a breakdown of our system governed by the rule of law.
Hence, the reason so many people act as if that is the case . . .
For those who think that Rubio is being insincere, I answer that with the face he made years ago when Z blew up the peace deal (this one was with Trump present).
His face said “What are you doing? We had a deal!”
Betrayal is powerful agent of change.
His SSCI days are problematic and suggest he is more weather vane than not.
He sort of kind of answered the question in a beauty pageant sort of way but in his mind he may see it as not changing much.
He said “what are the values that sort of drive you to do what you do?” and he hopes that hasn’t changed. I know there are many who believe he was deep state on the SSCI but maybe not. Is it possible his values disagreed with some things but “security” required him to act. He did say he has seen things that changed him so maybe PDJT’s accomplishments and something on that committee caused a different perspective.
The question Sundance puts out there ‘why have your views changed so dramatically in the past two years, and/or are you just playing a role.‘ is a bit of a gotcha question he will never answer. It’s a bit like “when did you stop beating your wife?” in that there is no good answer. The question presupposes that he has changed dramatically but he probably doesn’t think so.
Better questions would be directly addressing specific policy that he publicly can be shown to differ on. He still would likely say that they aren’t really that different, like a skilled politician would say the President takes precedent. He would then go on to explain why, in a way we might have trouble disagreeing with.
I do like his very professional demeanor but I also have to be wary of the skills he has and how he applies them. Those skills include doing a very good job for PDJT, but if he were in charge, I’m not sure he would be the same. If he is playing a role, he’s doing a good job.
–“Those skills include doing a very good job for PDJT, but if he were in charge, I’m not sure he would be the same.“–
I don’t think we can ever know for sure how anyone elected President will truly be until they are in office and in charge……Well, I take that back, we knew Biden was going to be a ‘no brainer’ disaster! <smiles>
yep things change fer sure.
That clip was recorded 10 years ago. I’d bet next months paycheck that he and #47 had serious discussions long before Rubio was nominated for SoS about policy differences and their past mutually adversarial remarks during campaigns.
But that’s history. People change & adapt.
Since he took office in this Admin, I have not heard Sec. Rubio hedging or taking “politically careful” positions on any official Pres. Trump policy. To the contrary, Sec. Rubio appears to support all #47 Admin policies without reservations and, when asked by news people, he publicly speaks very clearly and intelligently about the reasoning behind them.
Agreed! Very refreshing after living through Pompous Pompeo and T Rex Tillerson.
Don’t gorget about George H. W. Bush’s CIA recruit turned AG.
It’s ridiculous to have the President’s daughter-in-law interviewing the Secretary of State. Our media is a joke.
What don’t you like about the interview? Is an “interview” of the Secretary of State akin to a cross-examination as a subpoenaed adverse witness?
You might prefer chelsea clinton as an interviewer who had a $600,000 job at NBC News ? Or maybe your preference would be don lemon if Secretary Rubio would tolerate him?
You are correct that our media is a propaganda joke.
Or an ex President’s Chief of Staff as a news anchor on another network?
Better than the commies that infest most of the MSM these days 🙂
This is why older, seasoned men make better presidents.
its the salt and pepper hair
I’ve never trusted lil’ Marco and still don’t. While he’s doing good work, it’s just a means to and end, which is the White House. Leopards don’t change their spots and Rubio is still the same RINO as when he was on the Gang of Eight. The only thing that has gotten better over his time as SoS is his mask.
If leopards don’t change their spots…..
….how did Trump become the focus of Leftist hate for the last decade or so????
I still feel suspect how he has changed FOR THE BETTER IMO so dramatically. I can only attribute it to having President Trump as a leader and mentor. What better person to learn from on the job!
I think the older a Cuban gets the more radically conservative they get. I can see Rubio in old age siting in a Miami Cafe drinking Cuban espresso, playing dominoes, yelling “You F-ing Communists!!!!
I’m glad to hear that he’s learning to enjoy all of the couch memes as much as I do. It’s a good trait to be able to laugh at yourself a little.
“And then of course there are legacy threats like the Iranian threat of a nuclear program, which can never happen. The President’s been very clear about that.”
Just a point of fact. When the JCPOA was set to expire in 2018, the other signatories to the agreement, including Iran, Russia, China, the EU and a few others were willing to continue honoring it. There was no credible evidence that the Iranians were violating the agreement beyond the civilian 3+ % enrichment levels.
It was President Trump who unilaterally withdrew the United States from the agreement and then reapplied sanctions on Iran. Angered … the Iranians at that point began their enrichment and by 2019 were something like 20% and by 2021 they were 60%, where it has remained. And here we are in this mess.
We have spent many years helping Ukraine target Russian bases. This level of denial of reality is unhealthy, bordering on the mentally ill.
America is doing that. Alex Karp and the CIA are in Ukraine managing their long-range drone strikes. The words of Thomas Jefferson are apt here — “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
I see the bots are out in full force on the treehouse today.
Oh yes. Any perceived opportunity to drive wedges in between MAGA people they enjoin with relish.
I don’t see it ever really working in CTH though. Folks are here because the truth is stronger than the false narratives spread by the anti Trumpers. IMHO that will continue into the foreseeable future.
It’s pretty obvious that Trump put this guy to work and has had the most consequential influence on him. Let’s hope that Rubio learned his lessons well.
From a female point of view, to answer Sundance, on what really stood out to me was,
“SECRETARY RUBIO: Look, unfortunately, I think you’ll find in the world that there are countries, or at least companies within countries, that work with adversaries of ours. And when we identify it, we raise it, and in some cases very successfully.”
And there it is. What a sickening thought especially for the U.S. whose companies were hammered into submission by Democrat Administrations since 2008.
How about also, OFF TOPIC FOR ONE SECOND BUT RELATED for all the anals, Spain today said 900 NGO’s were helping the Illegals gain entry and citizenship.
WTF on BOTH.
Politicized problems directly from the Uniparty and State Dept. grand larceny of the U.S. Taxpayers.
I think he is using the word “companies “ to describe CIA/deep state types of entities.
I should also add factions like what we see in Iran.
Yes, “Companies”, to us, are wink, wink, nudge, nudge. But I think it’s gone way beyond that.
Nauseating to hear Cuba has any significant anti-American Activism power against the U.S., but we see now it’s their strong suit, all these f-ing years later.
“Mob for Activism Hire”, looks like a profession for recent college graduates, with degrees in NOTHING, courteously of the UNIPARTY enablers and our taxpayer CASH.
“The Company “ was always how CIA people referred to Langley, when they were out in public. A bit of purposeful ambiguity, in my opinion.
I personally think that Rubio is one of the very best Secretaries of State that we have ever had. He takes the job extremely seriously, but also sometimes shows a wicked (in a good way …) sense of humor.
SOS is the country’s Chief Diplomatic Officer second only to the President. Done well, it is a grueling and thankless job. And, he does it well.
With regards to what’s happening now in Cuba, it’s very significant that he IS Cuban. He knows the place, having escaped it.
Mike, I am as impressed as you by SOS Rubio.
He seems to have mastered ‘two-face’, by merging old and new with reality and personal ancestral goals, tossed with some ‘Trumpism”foreign policy and economics.
SOS Rubio is emerging into his own entity and it’s very powerful indeed. I just pray it’s backed by his faith, patriotism, family and common sense.
Hey, if he’s ” playing a role,” he’s doing better than most.
Rubio continues to impress me. He provides cogent articulate responses to Trump’s questions. I think he is better than Vance.
If he runs for president in 2028, he will get my vote.
Marco Rubio is very pro-amnesty, something that is wildly and generationally unpopular in America.
People that are so enamored with today’s version of Marco Rubio seem to forget this giant detail.
Which isn’t to take anything away from him as far as his outstanding job he’s doing today, BUT the last thing we need is a Pro-Amnesty President born to two non-citizen parents.
There is miles of thread at this very site saying that we need to send ALL these people home.
Sundance says we don’t need this foreign labor in a current post today.
So this clear and current attitude certainly isn’t going to then become a pro-amnesty crowd- this is for sure.
So think about that as you say he’s Presidential material- he’s not.
I have growing concerns over who is next: the Big Tech man or the Pro-Amnesty man.
It will be critical that we support who is next, BUT there are going to be a lot of people that don’t support either of these two.
Which is a big problem we’ve got coming with the side that is very hard to even get out to vote.
I like this guy. I know he doesn’t like doing everything Trump tells him to do, but he approaches that like any professional would in his own business environment. One thing I like is that he is not a chest thumper like his boss seams to dissolve into during political speeches.
Would Rubio make a good President? I don’t know, because he doesn’t have the background of being a big part of the USA’s greatest strength, which is our economy, and I think that is what makes President Trump better as a President than the vast majority of his predecessors in that office. Trump understands the American people and makes every effort to work on our behalf.
I don’t know think Rubio could ever have that, but he is watching carefully for what really works for his current boss. Against every Demcommie I have ever seen, Rubio would get my vote for the job. But, I think there are plenty of people that I might like better during the Primary season. People who understand the shear stupidity of letting illegals come into our country comes to my mind.
Interesting proposition in a discussion Susan Kokinda was part of in the last 10 days or so. It may have been her proposition.
Who better to have on your team, than those who played for the “wrong” side, or worked intimately in one way or another during their careers, with those whose actions/ideas we find repulsive? DJT knows the mafia inside and out as a builder in NYC; Bessent knows where all the bodies are buried having worked with/for Soros; Rubio knows the entire IC playbook….assuming by now the point is made.
I thought it was a pretty good observation.
What a time to be alive.
Still suspicious. He sponsored the amendment to require congressional approval for the President to leave NATO… Very shortly before Trump was elected.
If the ability to think quickly and speak easily and literately is a mark of intelligence–and it is–this is one of the brightest public servants we have. Do his motives match his skill level? We sure hope so and from everything seen so far, they do.
well……I supported George Bush…….and altho John Kerry and Al Gore were so much worse and I never would have supported either –
I was wrong about George Bush – thought he was a patriot
but he was a pretend and I didn’t know as much about politics then
except to know that for the most part dems were dirty dogs – yes, even the so called blue dogs
It broke my heart to see the photo of George Bush and Bill Clinton and Bush’s comment, “Bill is my brother from another mother”.
For I knew Clinton was a traitor without any doubt
Many of us, without the internet alternative news sources, thought Walter Cronkite was to be trusted. We only had the
alphabet channels on television and NO other sources. I accidentally came across Rush Limbaugh on the radio as I
traveled for work, driving across five states. Someone who thought like me?!!
And I know that without President Trump, Marco Rubio, Scott Bessent, etc. our country would be doomed.
So, let’s give all of us who have been lied to a pass. I would like Rubio to be our next President.
When I was a regular listener to Glenn Beck’s show, he ALWAYS asked that question.
What was your pivot point? What happened that changed your point of view?
I see Rubio being a “student” of President Trump’s. He is using this opportunity to learn from a Master.
2028 will be the tech bros represented by Vance versus the defense-industrial-intelligence complex represented by Rubio.
Wait until those two have a baby!!!
I could see vance rolling VP for 8 years while enjoying his children. POTUS is a lot of work these days compared to JFK’s era, although Biden put that to the test.
Lindsey went to Rubio for support of the Iran War, not Jared or Witkoff,.I don’t think Rubio hides his support of war.
Rubio IMHO is a much better SOS than a Senator.
I do not trust him.
I don’t trust him. When the President didn’t answer Bibi’s calls, he called Rubio. Also, Bibi prefers to deal with Rubio over Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
He’s a shoe-in for Prez after 8 years of VP Vance. I’m a rabid Republican. If the party ran Ebenezer Scrooge , I vote for him rather than any Democrat. My wife is a Democrat. There’s a House vacancy & a vote Aug 11. Wife wrote
“Confederate Vote” on the Calendar. 😂 She’s an avid Democrat.