A point to emphasize.
Current Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio, was chair of the senate select committee on intelligence (SSCI) and a Gang of Eight member since day one of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Due to his role in the Gang of Eight Senator Rubio was briefed on all the covert activities being carried out in Ukraine by the CIA and Pentagon.
That is why when Secretary of State Marco Rubio told media months ago that “Ukraine was a proxy war for the United States against Russia,” it was a jaw-dropping statement. If anyone would know the receipts, it’s the former Chair of the SSCI, who became the Secretary of State. However, to say the truth so openly and publicly was something entirely unexpected, especially from Rubio.
As Secretary of State Rubio represented President Trump’s America-First foreign policy and national security interests very effectively, many people were shocked at the seemingly 180° degree turn Rubio took to represent the MAGA perspectives. Rubio adroitly navigated the media with exceptional support for President Trump’s positions, and diplomatic action to back it up.
While most of us continue watching Rubio closely, obviously President Trump saw the unique perspectives held by the former Senator on intelligence matters. President Trump then appointed Rubio to a dual role as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
While the Secretary of State represents the public face of President Trump’s diplomatic policy toward the world, the Nat Sec Advisory represents President Trump’s outward view to the global intelligence network. Marco Rubio now carries both extremely important titles and responsibilities.
Keeping in mind the prior statements by Rubio about Ukraine being a proxy state for U.S. operations against Russia, both Marco Rubio and President Trump have been mostly silent and very measured in their comments about Russia after the Ukraine attack on the Russian nuclear-capable bombers.
Obviously, both Secretary Rubio and President Trump know the Senate control of the BBB is unfortunate timing for their solutions to the Ukraine-Russia war. Their solution is likely to be something the Senate will not like. The Senate will never publicly admit that Ukraine is a U.S. proxy war against Russia.
However, while the Senate needs to retain these ridiculous pretenses, ultimately Russian President Vladimir Putin does not. Putin is well aware of the USA support level, open and covert, taking place within Ukraine. This is the context for all of President Trump’s communication with Putin.
You can even pull that context out of President Trump’s statement following his recent conversation with President Putin, “it was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace.” The key word there is “immediate.” The implication is that Peace can be achieved but some forward factors need to be addressed first.
We are in this weird place where parts of our government (Senate and media) are pretending the Russia-Ukraine conflict is something, while simultaneously part of our government (executive) are clear-eyed and not pretending.
The pretending part of our government now holds a key piece of President Trump’s domestic agenda, the Big Beautiful Bill, in their control. President Trump and Marco Rubio careful not to apply pressure that could weaken their geopolitical objective with Russia.
Again, the 2025 Marco Rubio is not a familiar person who have followed republican politics. Rubio has been one of the biggest positive surprises of the administration so far. In a position of such importance to President Trump, and with this level of responsibility being used effectively, Rubio is well positioned to achieve support in 2028.
The point is (well know since the 1950’s and earnestly supported by General MacArthur himself) Peace is going to have to become the normal state of man over war in the modern world, or the human race will become extinct. Not too hard to figure out!
But instead they’re trying to hold you hostage because of this to get total power (we get everything we want or we’ll start a nuclear war). Which is not only asinine but Treason against humanity, and a couple of these bastards swinging from a telephone pole would cure the problem thoroughly and quickly.
Exactly…..the swinging ant happen soon enough!
cant happen soon enough!
It makes sense when you know that they want to depopulate Chistendom.
No more genocidal European Wars!!!
Seems they are also desperate to keep 2 Caucasian countries in a hostile relationship forever and depopulate us as well! Ancient hatreds, the persistence of WWII and Cold War memories, and putrid political corruption is very difficult to overcome.
It’ll never cure the human condition for survival. We will continuously see power corrupt any and all humans out into those roles. The only possible way to survive as a species will either be to submit to AI as our god or selectively breed out the survival instincts thru genetic modification.
Nothing is going to “cure” the human condition, ever. The promise in the bible is that there will be “wars and rumors of wars” until Christ returns. Humans at conflict is our natural condition due to our nature. So the best solution for America is to understand that while we may have temporary allies, we have NO friends in the world. And we need to have both the plans and the military capability to protect ourselves from everyone, everywhere. Of course, as we learned in Viet Nam, we also need enough congressmen with both the IQ and the spine to understand when and how to support the military. And not by just throwing money at it. Our military is currently seriously over-funded.
Judging from the 60 some years since America’s “political adventure” in Vietnam, the only people who “learned a lesson” are the men and women who served time there, and maybe coming back. However, It sure did open the door wide to even more political corruptions, supercharging the Military Industrial Complex, even more War-Mongering, especially the Bush Doctrine and Senatorial Money Laundering by most of our esteemed, dignitary Senators and Presidents like Sen Lindsay Graham and President Biden.
To avoid the Blowback from the People, the State Dept, CIA aand Senate are engaging in a Proxy War with Russia. The war has not been declared nor explained for the purpose or grievance; it’s a JUST BECAUSE WE HATE THEM war! But not to worry, they don’t want our sons and daughters go fight and die so they get a bigger kickback; it’s because of NATO. An organization created to fight off a long deceased enemy called the Soviet Union. So the lesson we learned is CORRUPT POLITICS IS VERY WILLING TO KILL YOU FOR THEIR GAIN!
They took the exact opposite lesson from J6 and went full steam ahead. Next time it won’t be people staying inside the velvet ropes, propping their feet on desks for selfies, and picking up the trash as they leave. We live with the most contemptible elite class.
Human nature is indeed intractable, but it is not incapable of restraint. That just has to happen one individual at a time. Vice will always be easier (and seem like more fun) than virtue, but our nature does not force us to choose it.
We are told in the Bible that the day will come when, talking about JESUS, that the government will be upon his shoulders and that he will rule the nations with a rod of iron. Only then will all this crap be straightened out.
Yes you got it
And yes we got just a handful that need to removed hung up to rot in public view like in times of old as a reminder to the world
I wish you were correct, but i believe you undestimate the enemy within the Senate, in particular. I have written in the comments several times, that Trump has tried to do what we all know needs to be done, but was trying to do it in an orderly way, to not create a huge event. I had believed that once he had his budget in hand, than we would see the mass arrests we all desire to see. The Dems were demonstrating their readiness to start the summer of love of 2020. between Comey, and many others stoking tensions with the Trump Derangement crowd and ANTIFA and others. But the UNiParty Rino’s and establishment Republicans were more subtle but no less deceiving. You heard very little condemnation of the lawless courts. You see , OPENLY, their want to not have peace anywhere. Graham, Blumenthal, Pompeo, the whole Dem Party. All traitors in my mind. They let many of the heads of his cabinet be confirmed, but there are many being slow walked. Massie axing Martin was another marker. But most of Congress will never do what needs tobe done to course correct through passing of Trump’s EO,s and DOGE cuts. It’s not about differences of opinion on laws. Oh, no, they are of almost unanimous mind to not do it. It is because most are corrupt and profitting, or compromised in an Epstein Intelligence operation. They have been rigging outcomes of elections, many of them, for 2 decades. Don’t tell me Maxine Waters and Aoc have support in their districts. Trump has been left with no choice. He needs to drop all the info today on all the corrupt evil lawbreakers today, and start the mass arrests. they will drag the spending bill indefinitely, to wreck everything. there is no more time available.
Right on! But Trump will not. And he never will. He could have shut down Ukraine in January and did not. No one knows his stance on anything day to day. I must admit that after 10 years of support, donating, working the 2024 Presidential elections, all with high hopes and truly believing the campaign rhetoric, I am coming down with a very bad case of TDS. I am not sure what the cure will be. The border was done immediately and that to me was the high mark. The rest has been very underwhelming.
Why not name names? It is the CCP who doesn’t care about starting a war. The problem the Chinese have is they have never has a worldwide victory . Theyare the original paper tiger who bullies whoever hey can but cave when resisted. China has no clue about America’s REAL CAPACITY TO DESTROY
Sun Tzu said in “Art of War”, that an evil man will burn his country down to rule over the ashes,,,,we are seeing that in real time
I nominate Lindsey Graham to test the rope.
IMESHO, the select of Rubio as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor was an absolutely brilliant choice, especially with his previous involvement on the senate select committee on intelligence (SSCI) and a Gang of Eight. Being aware of other Senator “vulnerabilities” certainly is useful in
coercingencouraging a Senator’s vote! How many times have we wondered “why someone voted the way that they did”??? IMESHO, we may see some interesting votes about the BBB in the Senate, in spite of Charlie Schemer.IMESHO, the key prize to great MAGA success are the important victories in the 2026 Midterms. Dominant GOP leadership in the House and Senate will go a looong way to ensuring MAGA success in the future, especially in budget considerations.
If Trump’s trajectory goes as it is going now, the midterms might not be so pretty. His ratings are at his all time high, but what happens in the next 12 months might change the tone for the US.
President Trump Won!!
Gracias Dios!!
Drill baby, drill.
Build baby, build.
Mine baby, mine.
Refine baby, refine.
Get regular unleaded down below $2.00 per gallon ASAP. That is the key to winning the mid-terms.
That and some indictments showing the American people that accountability is back on the menu.
I’d prefer a couple hundred bastards to face a firing squad after military trial at Gitmo. But what do I know, maybe it should be a couple thousand bastards.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-negotiations-terrorists-well-retaliate-time-our-choosing-kremlin
There may come a time when President Putin, even though he has high regard for PDJT, stops pretending and takes direct action against the US.
Ukraine is not attacking Russia…
At least not the successful damaging ones…
The US may be loading and pointing the rifle but the Ukraine is gladly holding it and pulling the trigger and that makes the Ukraine better than the US, how?
Ukraine is at war with Russia.
Yes it’s a proxy war for us, but it’s a real war for the people who are actually fighting it just the same.
I doubt that. I don’t think Putin needs an all out war. It will not be good for Russia, but then hey, who gives a S about Europe. They will pay the price.
If he feels an existential threat like the US takeover of Ukraine, he’ll have no choice but to let the nukes fly. Sadly, I think that’s what the elite want as there are 9 billion useless feeders that are draining the earths resources and the elite no longer need any of us
What is sad is that you so glibly speak about nukes flying. And that you seem to want it to happen!
I understand where your coming from, but I believe that Doge has a factual basis for those concerns. In the last half of December, we may well have been closer than during the Cuban situation.
Perhaps the primary target could be the beltway in Washington DC? Just wondering.
That is exactly what the CIA/NATO/EU/UK cabal want to happen
I can not believe that many of you have not figured out what is going on. THINK! The globalist, the EU,, WEF, U.N. with your Progessive-communist in the U.S and Canada, have been working a plan for decades, to create a one world government. China, which ultimately would killed and taken over these dimwits, sat back while they all made friendly with China, because they could be the SS to control us. But in 2016, there were only 2 nations that stood in their way, The U.S. and Russia. When they met privately in Helsinki, i believe they agreed that cartel WAS THE GREATEST THREAT TO BOTH NATions. Trump and Putin were openly hostile to globalism. Trump was dismantling as much as he could without much support in Congress. When they stole the election in 2020, WITH HELP FROM RINO’s IN GEORGIA, Arizona, Wisconscin, and the FBI and I.C. along with half the government, and installed the Maanchurian, they did what was intended for Hillary to do. And they tried everything to prevent Trump to be where he is, including assassinsation. PUTIN had lost his one ally to fight these globalist. if they could have defeated Russia, it would have been over. He has taken the brunt of losses and casualties. They attacked him thinking Russia would fold. Ukraine is a battering ram, used by the sick globalists who care not about any population.They need to depopulate the world cause 8+Billion people are too many to control. Trump is not only fighting the Enemy within, he is at war with the globalist in Europe, who were aligning with China. Putin don’t trust China. If he didn’t have nuclear weapons, they would just mass migrate and take Russia’s resources. So we have forced him to partner with China to defeat the west crazies.He is under extreme pressure within in Russia from those wanting to just obliterate Uraine and be done with it. And our commies in Congress are helping to destroy Trump’s plan.
Well, Rubio it is then. JD is under foreign influence (India).
And JD is heavily influenced by tech.
also foreign–to the Founders.
That’s why Elon says he’s only here for the H-1B Visa Di$count.
Rubio is not a Natural Born citizen. His parents weren’t US citizens when he was born.
If he was born in the US, he is a citizen. (Of course, the case before the Supreme Court is re-examining this very issue.)
I didn’t say he isn’t a citizen. I said he isn’t a Natural Born citizen. There’s a difference. He’s a citizen under the 14th Amendment. He was born here to two foreign citizens. He’s the same as Nikki Haley – she was born here to two foreign citizens, also.
Rubio is a natural born citizen. It doesn’t matter whether his parents were US citizens or not . If two undocumented immigrants have a baby in the USA that child is a natural born citizen eligible to be president later in life .
Though the Supreme Court is considering a case involving an executive order by Trump aimed at restricting birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non citizens
re: “If two undocumented immigrants have a baby in the USA that child is a natural born citizen eligible to be president later in life .”
Thinking, um, no. You missed the finer point that this question is coming up before the court too.
Brilliant SCOTUS Brief Destroys Birthright Citizenship Hoax! John Eastman’s razor-sharp SCOTUS amicus brief
That is not accurate. Children inherit citizenship from their parents. Rubio’s parents were still Cuban Nationals when Rubio was born. Rubio was born a Cuban National from his parents. Due to an unconstitutional ruling from SCOTUS, Rubio was born a US citizen, also. He was born with dual allegiance. A Natural Born citizen cannot have dual allegiance.
“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.”.…David Ramsay, 1789.
“The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth.”
“Vattel writes concerning citizens and natives:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it” http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/classesofcitizen.html
I’ve got so much more evidence.
Elk vs Wilkins The Supreme Court said Elk was not a
citizen by birth because he was born into a sovereign Native American tribe, which considered at the time a seperate political community
Inglis v. Trustees
The court ruled Place of birth alone was not enough at that time because Inglis was born before the U.S. was fully independent to a father who was loyal to Britain .
Inglis vs trustees was also before the 14th amendment so things were a bit murky.
Also both those cases were before Wong Kim Ark (1898) case, which held that being born on U.S. soil makes you a U.S. citizen, regardless of your parents’ nationality.
“The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth.”
Your reading comprehension needs improving. Not citizens because fathers owed allegiance to sovereigns other than the US. Which is exactly what I said. Foreign citizens CANNOT give birth to US citizens.
Ark does NOT say they are citizen regardless of parents’ nationality. They said citizen because parents were LEGAL RESIDENTS. AND Ark was WRONG. They completely ignored the actual law at the time. And said something completely different from Elk even though NOTHING had CHANGED.
How many times do you need to be told these aren’t about Natural Born citizenship, just citizen?
Correctumundo sir, what your antagonists willfully refuse to comprehend is the fact that the concept of citizenship as we know it has been disolved. Be it by moral relativism or communism. It’s gone. The fact remains we live in a fallen world and those that worship the creation instead of the Creator will always prefer lies to the truth. I ask, who rules the ego of any man or woman?
There hasn’t been real civics instruction since the mid seventies, literally. Therefore we, they, them get the leaders we deserve.
I’m female — a grandmother — not a crucial detail, though.
I thank you for your kind words.
I wish this was the case for judges as well as many are imports. Juan Marchal in NYC comes to mind. I hope I got the name right. We was from Colombia.
Not if either parent conveyed their citizenship from their home country to the child.. A natural born cannot have a dual citizenship ever at any point of their life even if they nullified that citizenship at a later date.. That was the whole point of a natural born.. they had no citizenship or were never a subject of another country at any time..
If someone believes they are better than another US citizen simply because their parents were born in the US and the other citizen’s parents were not … they don’t have much going for them.
Who says they are ‘better?’
It’s a Constitutional requirement. I didn’t make the rule, the Framers made the rule. They made this rule to prevent the Commander in Chief from having foreign allegiance.
“in 1787, John Jay, who later became the first Supreme Court Chief Justice and one of the authors of The Federalists Papers, wrote the following in a letter to George Washington:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
“It can be claimed without exaggeration that it is Vattel’s interpretations and writings on the subject of the proper constitution of government that was most influential on the Founders of the American Republic. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, indisputably one of the lead framers of our nation’s government, ranked Vattel’s seminal The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law as highly as similar treatises by Grotius and Pufendorf.
Benjamin Franklin shared Jefferson’s admiration for Vattel. In 1775, Franklin wrote in a letter:
” I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”.
” Vattel’s The Law of Nations or The Principles of the Laws of Nature regarding the concept of “natural born citizen”:
§ 212: “Natural born citizens are those born in a country to parents who are also citizens of that country. Particularly, if the father of the person is not a citizen then the child is not a citizen either. Children cannot inherit from parent`s rights not enjoyed by them.”
§ 213: “While those individuals described above may be permitted to remain in the country of their birth, they are not naturally endowed with the rights of citizens.”
§ 214: “A country may allow a person born in a country to foreign parents the status of citizenship, this is called naturalization. That is a function of law, not of birthright.”
§§ 215, 216 & 217: “Children born overseas to parents who are foreigners in that country do not become natural born citizens of that country, rather they are citizens of the country to which their parents owe allegiance.” http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/article_II.html
Well, I , for one, don’t think “Natural Born Citizens” or “Heritage Americans” are better than citizens born in the US from non citizens. Did it escape your notice that the US Constitution left slaves as they found them?
The US Framers were great men but not perfect.
What are you talking about? No one ever said anything about NB citizens being better. Also, no one ever said the Constitution or the Framers were perfect.
It’s just a requirement for president. It’s to prevent the CiC of the military from having foreign allegiance.
Like the minimum age. Or House Reps and Senators having to live in the states they represent.
It doesn’t make a difference in anything except one office.
Yes. And faithfully adhering to this Constitutional requirement would have prevented the enduring travesty that was Obama.
From which we have not and may never recover.
On Obama’s toxic legacy:
https://revolver.news/2025/06/how-obama-turned-liberals-into-self-hating-white-zombies/
I remember watching a video clip of a Republican federal official’s townhall. His constituents were furious about obama and the Republicans in Congress not doing anything about obama’s ineligibility. This was after obama was elected.
The guy was very blunt and said obama was elected and the Republicans in Congress were not going to do anything. His opinion, their opinion, was that they should not do anything because the People had spoken.
His constituents were furious, I was furious. I couldn’t understand then, and still can’t, how he and the Republicans in Congress could ignore the Constitution like that. Republicans didn’t do nearly enough before the election to protect the Country from obama.
obama’s place of birth was a red herring that dems were happy repubs focused on. obama’s father made obama ineligible no matter where obama was born.
It ought to matter for ANY Federal office. we have TOO MANY non-NB citizens in Congress. I suspect several who are not even eligible for their office.
Everything that’s going on these days, I’m wondering if it should be a requirement for all elected offices — federal and state.
Elected officials swear an oath to the Constitution, but their words and actions show they did not mean it.
So many elected officials don’t even know what is Constitutional and what isn’t.
Vattel was Swiss and he wrote that in 1758 before the US Constitution was written .
His book influenced the Founding Fathers, but he did not define U.S. law, and his interpretation of “natural born” differs from modern U.S. legal standards.
You can argue whether the interpretation is correct or not , but tr fact is Rubio and any one born into the states to undocumented immigrants is eligible to run for president
Yeah, that’s why I included those citations.
The only way to change the meaning of Natural Born citizen is by amending the Constitution. Definitions can’t be ‘reinterpreted.’
The fact is a Natural Born citizen is one born in the Country to TWO US citizens.
Children inherit citizenship from their parents.
“The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth.”
Both those cases were about just citizens, not even Natural Born citizens.
“Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874), U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENTS (plural) who were its CITIZENS (plural) became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
1866, John A Bingham:
John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Rubio is not eligible.
.
You seemingly are failing to understand that people who move here and get naturalized are henceforth U.S. citizens (on that date of the proceeding they attended) and can indeed marry a fellow U.S. citizen (even another naturalized one) and give birth to a child — who indeed would be a natural born citizen eligible to be president upon attaining the age of 35 . . .
.
I should mention that a marriage is not necessary to have a natural born citizen, and, also, that a marriage could take place prior to becoming a citizen.
The point is, both parents must be citizens prior to a baby being born for that baby to be a natural born citizen.
If I recall correctly it’s not at all about how anyone feels.
It’s about what the Constitution intended, specifically about the office of the President and only that office.
The founders simply expected that any President would have roots to our own soil.
I think a person whose parents were born here makes a better president.
I don’t want the children of people who were just passing through holding high office, it makes it too easy to place someone like Kamala Harris in power.
I’m at the point now where I don’t think even naturalized citizens should be able to hold office.
I do think I’m a better citizen than the children of communist Chinese or Mexicans or anybody else who came here and happened to have kids while here illegally or even on a visa.
I think the children of immigrants who came here legally and took the trouble to become citizens are wonderful citizens, because most of those people who I have met are.
Just being honest.
Not exactly. There were special conditions legislated by Congress for Cuban refugees and their citizenship. Rubio would be covered by those. Rubio may be considered natural born; special class of anchor baby anyway.
Tulsi Gabbard is also in a gray area. Her parents are US citizens – her father was born in America Somoa, but his father was a US citizen. But like her father, she was born in America Samoa. Do US territories clear the natural born citizen hurdle?
Rubio does not have any special considerations. His parents became citizens several years after Rubio was born. Rubio is a citizen because of the unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling in Ark. SCOTUS illegally created a new class of citizen. They don’t have the authority to do that. People who are citizens only because of the Ark misruling are naturalized citizens — citizens by a man-made law; citizens because of Congress’ Constitutional authority over naturalization.
The new class of citizen, rather the illegal redefining of an existing class, from this ruling was native — meaning born here with no citizen parents. Before Ark, native meant the same thing as Natural Born — born here with 2 citizen parents.
Oh, I found you again! I wanted to address Tulsi but I loar your comment.
Tulsi is not an NBC for the opposite reason. Her parents were citizens when she was born, but she wasn’t born in an incorporated US territory.
“Tulsi Gabbard, was born in the tiny overseas island territory of American Samoa. Americans born in that territory have U.S. nationality but not citizenship. The local government and people so far have not petitioned Congress for U.S. citizen status. But those born there to a U.S. citizen parent acquire parental citizenship at birth.
While American Samoa is a “territory” of the United States, it is not an “incorporated territory.””
Court cases: Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) The United States Supreme Court had ruled in 1901 that unincorporated territories, even if under the control of the United States, are not, prior to formal action by the Congress, a part of the United States.
Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905): Thereafter, the Court ruled that the full spectrum of the Constitution’s provisions apply only in incorporated territories of the United States, thereby excluding from that full spectrum its application in unincorporated territories.
This conclusion is also fortified by recognition that, after enacting 1 Stat. 103, the “1790 Naturalization Act,” declaring children born to U.S. citizen parents “beyond sea” (i.e., not in the United States) to be “considered” as natural born citizens, Congress repealed altogether that law by enacting 1 Stat. 414 in 1795, the “1795 Naturalization Act.” The new law changed it to be “considered” as citizens, not natural born. The title of the 1795 act was: “An Act to establish an [sic: so in original] uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.”
Not only the facts above but the fact that she obatained [sic] her citizenship by an act of Congress makes her a naturalized citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen.”
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971): “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.”
And in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said: “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”
*Darn it, forgot my link again. http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/tulsigabbard.html
Sorry, had another point…
Congress has only the Constitutional authority to naturalize. They can’t deem a person an NBC unless the person meets the requirements of an NBC. There are 3 – born within the territories of the US, father a US citizen, mother a US citizen.
I’ve seen it descripted as a 3 legged stool. A person has to have all 3 ‘legs’ to be an NBC.
Didn’t stop powers that be from making Obama as president…. Nor nominating Kamala Harris for president after electing her as vice president. Harris was born in US, but neither parent citizens at the ti,e of her birth in fact both were students and their children born here were exempt from receiving birth citizenship. Plus, her mother never applied for US citizenship and her Father granted citizenship in Sept 1981, when Kamala was 17 and she had been living in Canada with her mother since she was 12 years old.
No, it didn’t because they don’t care about the Constitution or the Country. They care about power and money.
This is NOT what Scotus is examining.
Key word being “natural” born citizen
So, you are good with all of these Chinese women coming here to have babies that are considered US citizens and then going back to China to be raised as future US presidents.
Excellent response.
Excellent example.
Will be interesting to look into that and see if there was a special situation created for the Cuban refugees which may have granted citizenship to their children born in the U.S. as I think those who made it here during those days may have granted an automatic citizenship to the parents.
His parents became citizens in 1975, several years after Rubio was born.
Looks like that lawsuit in front of the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship is going to determine whether or not Rubio gets to run for President.
It’s not about Natural Born citizen. It’s about being born a citizen – birthright citizenship. A person is born a citizen if they are born within US territories to at least ONE US citizen. That makes the child a citizen at birth.
No it won’t. …Trump’s executive order applies only to children born after the order’s effective date, not to those born before.
That’s great. Still not eligible for president
.
If he gained his citizenship from ‘any’ governmental proclamation, how can that be seen as natural born?
To be born a citizen at birth IS NOT the equivalent to being a natural born citizen.
So, while natural born citizens ARE citizens at birth, natural born citizenship is a closed subset in the whole set of citizens at birth.
I wonder where the boy Elion? is today and what he is doing?
I remember that raid so well, and that incredible photograph, which should have won the “Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography.” (To be precise, I looked up the correct name of the award).
Please stop with this horse crap.
You think the Constitution is horse crap? The Constitution requires a president to be a Natural Born citizen. House Reps and Senators just have to be citizens. There is a difference. The Framers wanted no foreign influence on the president.
“Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874), U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENTS (plural) who were its CITIZENS (plural) became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
There are mistakes in the US Constitution but it is still the greatest constitution ever drawn up. How can it be perfect if slaves weren’t freed immediately?
I love and served my country and believe it’s the greatest nation ever conceived or born. The US Constitution is not the Word of God so let’s not pretend otherwise.
No one said it is perfect. Nor has anyone said it’s God’s Word. It’s our highest law and the government has to obey it.
It is just one of the requirements for president. Why are you overreacting and getting all bent out of shape over this?
The horse crap is people who won’t accept the reality of birth right citizenship.
Carefully read what Yiu posted there .. It acknowledged that people born in the U.S. to citizen parents are without doubt natural-born citizens — but it did not say that ONLY those people are natural-born citizens.
Here is another case to consider
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
The court ruled :
> A child born in the United States, even to non-citizen parents, is a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment.
seems pretty clear to me .
Also neither of Andrew Jacksons parents were US citizens
Yes it does — “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Ark was an unconstitutional ruling. They were WRONG. Ark deals with LEGAL RESIDENTS and CITIZEN. Says nothing about Natural Born citizen.
The SAME judge in Ark also did this: Elk v Wilkins (1884) : “The persons declared to be citizens are all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Of course Jackson’s parents weren’t US citizens. He was born before the Constitution was adopted, the US didn’t exist when he was born.
Article II
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Jackson was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. There were no Natural Born citizens yet.
“David Ramsay was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from that state in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians.
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. Remember there was no 14th Amendment at this time. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/ramsey.html
1866, John A Bingham (Framer of the 14th Amendment):
John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Only the child of a US citizen can be BORN a US citizen. Only the child of TWO US citizens born in the US can be a Natural Born citizen.
Elk v Wilkins (1884)
Elk was born into a sovereign native american tribe which was considered a seperate political community.
It doesn’t matter whether you think Ark was an unconstitutional ruling, I even agree with you on that.
Fact of the matter is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the leading Supreme Court precedent on birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment , and to say it says nothing about natural born citizens is completely ignorant . Most legal scholars and lower courts have concluded that “citizen at birth = natural-born citizen.
Until there is constitutional amendment, or a new Supreme Court ruling that overturns Wong Kim Ark, a child born in the states to immigrants is a natural born US citizen.
Last time I correct you. Ark does NOT deal with Natural Born citizen. Just CITIZEN.
Natural Born citizen is not mentioned!
In Elk, Gray said Indians are born within the territorial limits of the US. This meets the first requirement of the 14th. They don’t meet the 2nd requirement because they owe allegiance to another sovereign.
This is exactly the same as Ark — born in the US to parents who STILL were under the power of a foreign sovereign.
We don’t need an amendment, just Congress to define ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ as the Framers defined it. Court rulings aren’t law nor are they the final word.
.
The conflation being inferred by those reading the judge in the Ark reading bears repeating:
‘Natives’ IS NOT CONGRUENT as a term to ‘natural-born citizens’ .
Native refers to a place a person is born.
Natural born refers to from whom a person was born.
That is a great way to explain it. I’m going to use that if you don’t mind.
.
Of course. Open source here at the treehouse . . .
Thank you! I cite Sundance as much as I can. I’ve posted one of his quote on my X profile. Yes, I use X, it’s my entertainment and I use it to draw attention to the Constitution and Constitutional government.
You are wrong about Ark not deal with natural born citizen s
The court ruled Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the 14th Amendment,
It’s debatable but most legal scholars and courts agree that citizen at birth =natural born citizen.
Funny you mention Gray because in Ark he wrote the majority opinion and drew a clear contrast
:Children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents who reside here legally are subject to U.S. jurisdiction → citizens at birth
:Children born to foreign diplomats or sovereign Native tribes (at the time) → not subject to full jurisdiction → not citizens at birth
That is not what Natural Born citizen means. It does not matter what legal scholars think. Courts do not think this. The definition of Natural Born citizen can not be changed or ‘interpreted‘ as something else. It is from Natural Law. That is what Vattel was talking about. The Founders/framers believed in and drew heavily from Natural Law.
The framers of the 14th were very clear — jurisdiction meant full and complete jurisdiction — legal and political jurisdiction. Gray illegally changed it to just legal. Gray even said in Ark that the parents were still under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Emperor. Gray violated federal law with that illegal change.
Elk and Ark were the same situation. Both were born within the legal territory of the US to parents who were under foreign jurisdiction. Elk was under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe. Ark was under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Emperor.
Federal law at the time of the 14th: “In 1866, two years before the 14th Amendment, by U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised defined who is a citizen:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power … are declared to be citizens of the United States”
Ark violates federal law!
I’m going to put quotes from the 14th Amendment framers in a different comment.
“Elk and Ark were the same situation. Both were born within the legal territory of the US to parents who were under foreign jurisdiction. Elk was under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe. Ark was under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Emperor.”
No not the same situation at all. It’s like present day a child born of undocumented Chinese immigrants is a natural born citizen, while a child born of Chinese diplomats is not a natural born citizen. It’s totally stupid ya ,but that’s the way it is
Arguing Grays decision was illegal and Ark violates the Constitution sorry to say is totally meaningless.
Why do you continue to lie?
Of course it’s not meaningless.
It is the same circumstance, your denial doesn’t change facts.
Elk — born in the territory of the US, but under the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign – Indian tribe.
Ark — born in the territory of the US, but under the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign – Chinese Emperor.
Did you not read this ? Or are you just ignoring it?
“Federal law at the time of the 14th: “In 1866, two years before the 14th Amendment, by U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised defined who is a citizen:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power … are declared to be citizens of the United States”
Elk — subject to a foreign power.
Ark — subject to a foreign power.
A quarter million natural born citizens born every year to undocumented immigrants says it’s meaningless
That’s a lie.
I have already posted proof that citizenship derived from the 14th Amendment is NATURALIZATION. Congress has ONLY the Constitutional power to NATURALIZE people.
Why do you keep lying?
1866, John A Bingham (framer of 14th):
John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham is talking about federal law here.
Senator Jacob Howard (framer of the 14th): “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Howard says it does not include children of foreigners or aliens!
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase into the 14th: Known as the Citizenship Clause, it is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. and state citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States. “[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Complete jurisdiction — not owing allegiance to another sovereign, not a citizen of another country!
“John Armor Bingham (January 21, 1815 – March 19, 1900) was also one of the principal framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, he was an American Republican congressman from the U.S. state of Ohio, judge advocate in the trial of the Abraham Lincoln assassination and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson.
In 1866, during 14th Amendment House debates, Ohio Representative John Bingham, stated: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.”
Sen. Jacob Howard: “[i] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
(Madison(2007))
Cannot be any clearer than this — jurisdiction in the 14th means the same jurisdiction current citizens are under!
Gray illegally changed this! In Ark Gray illegally ignored the Civil Rights Act of 1866: “…all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 112 U.S. 99-103.
“1873 the United States Attorney General George Williams, who was a U.S. Senator during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.”(14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th’s ratificaiton [sic], Congress issued a joint congressional report, House Report No. 784, stating:
“The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”
Elk v Wilkins (1884) : “The persons declared to be citizens are all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Complete jurisdiction means legal and political!
Sorry, forgot to include the link. http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/index.html
So are we debating whether present day a child born to non citizens is a natural born citizen or whether the fact the child is a natural born citizen violates the Constitution??
Igbmiel can quote dead people all he wants if a lady jumps the wall and pops out a child , that child a natural born citizen.
Boris Johnson getting hit a tax bill comes to mind. Neither of his parents were citizens yet natural born citizen Boris certainly was . Don’t think he was to happy about it
No, he’s not. The Founders/framers says he is not; the framers of the 14th says he is not; court cases says he is not — not even Ark says he’s a citizen.
Yes, the dead people who had the authority to define the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. They did so and I have posted that proof.
Who’s Boris Johnson?
Boris John was a bloke born in the states neither parent was an American citizen, (were on student visas I think )grew up in Britain became prime minister of Britain and was issued a tax bill by the IRS when he sold his home in London . He ended up paying the bill , to bad he didn’t have you giving him legal advice .
He renounced his American citizenship in 2016.
Problem is present day courts and govt are choosing to ignore those dead people
Why do you keep lying?
He was a DUAL citizen. A 14th Amendment citizen — that is a NATURALIZED citizen. He got a tax bill because he was still a dual citizen — US and UK.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a dual or naturalized citizen to be an NBC.
Wtf , Boris Johnson was not a naturalized citizen he was a citizen at birth not through naturalization.
I have already posted the proof for this.
Natural Born citizen comes from Natural Law and Natural Rights. Vattel explains this in his book – The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Vattel’s The Law of Nations or The Principles of the Laws of Nature regarding the concept of “natural born citizen”:
§ 212: “Natural born citizens are those born in a country to parents who are also citizens of that country. Particularly, if the father of the person is not a citizen then the child is not a citizen either. Children cannot inherit from parent`s rights not enjoyed by them.”
§ 213: “While those individuals described above may be permitted to remain in the country of their birth, they are not naturally endowed with the rights of citizens.”
§ 214: “A country may allow a person born in a country to foreign parents the status of citizenship, this is called naturalization. That is a function of law, not of birthright.”
§§ 215, 216 & 217: “Children born overseas to parents who are foreigners in that country do not become natural born citizens of that country, rather they are citizens of the country to which their parents owe allegiance.”
READ 214 AGAIN!
§ 214: “A country may allow a person born in a country to foreign parents the status of citizenship, this is called naturalization. That is a function of law, not of birthright.”
Natural Born citizen — Natural Law — Natural Rights
David Ramsey: “…[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/index.html
Natural Born citizen — Natural Right — Natural Law.
Court cases before Ark, and stated in federal law, a child born in the Country to non-citizens was NOT a US citizen. They were whatever their parents were. Before Ark, native was the same as Natural Born citizen — born in the Country to 2 US citizen parents.
Gray illegally changed the meaning of jurisdiction and illegally created a new type of native citizen — a child born in the US to non-citizens.
This IS a naturalized citizen because that is the only citizen man-made laws can create — naturalized citizens. Is the Constitution man-made? Are the amendments man-made?
YES!
Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
If Congress is involved, if the government is involved, if man-made laws are involved….it is naturalization!
Government using man-made laws cannot create Natural Born citizens.
you conflate all man-made definitions of citizenship with naturalization, which isn’t accurate. The 14th Amendment defines a category of birthright citizens who are not naturalized, and this has been upheld by Supreme Court precedent.
Again I’m just saying it’s the reality not that it’s the way it should be via the Constitution
Dude. You should consult a doctor for your delusions and denial. Also see if they can help with your compulsive lying.
I am conflating nothing. Naturalization is HOW a person becomes a citizen. If a person becomes a citizen because of a law created by men that is NATURALIZATION.
You can’t seem to comprehend the difference between man-made law and Natural Law.
I don’t even think you understand the terms being used. Birthright citizenship just means a person is a CITIZEN from birth. NOTHING ELSE.
Because of Gray’s illegal ruling in Ark, people born in the US to NON-CITIZENS were considered citizens at birth. This is STILL NATURALIZATION –– citizenship because of a MAN-MADE LAW.
Natural Born citizen comes from Natural Law — it is a NATURAL RIGHT. It doesn’t come from government and laws. Have you never read the Declaration of Independence?
Did you not even read the citations I included?
§ 214: “A country may allow a person born in a country to foreign parents the status of citizenship, this is called naturalization. That is a function of law, not of birthright.”
Do you understand what Vattel is saying? Oh, and don’t give me the BS that Vattel didn’t write our laws — the Founders/framers relied heavily on his book The Principles of the Laws of Nature – Natural Law — Natural Rights.
Vattel explains that when a Country allows a child born in the country to FOREIGN PARENTS to be a citizen, it is NATURALIZATION. A man-made law gives them citizenship. Not Natural Law, not Natural Rights. A man-made law. It can ONLY be naturalization because that’s the ONLY power government has — the power to naturalize.
These children did not inherit US citizenship from their parents, which is Natural Law and Natural Rights. They have US citizenship because a MAN-MADE LAW gave it to them – that is NATURALIZATION. They have citizenship at birth not because of Natural Law or the Natural Right of inheriting US citizenship from their parents, but because of the power of government to naturalize people.
Did you not read this? “David Ramsey: “…[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Are you understanding what David Ramsey is saying? He is saying US citizenship through inheritance from parents is a NATURAL RIGHT and can ONLY be passed on by US citizens. Natural Rights from Natural Law. No man-made law is necessary, no man-made law is capable of doing this.
And no. No SCOTUS ruling has said 14th Amendment citizens are NOT naturalized citizens.
I’m not saying your position is wrong it’s just not the view that governs U.S. constitutional law or citizenship today.
Your totally delusional to try and argue otherwise
How did Kamala Harris got to be vp ??? What if she won instead of Trump ??? Obviously she must have checked the natural born citizen box despite neither of her parents being citizens when she was born.
Bobby Jindal …
Nikki Haley…
Let me fix that for you…
It’s not what the corrupt, illegitimate government thinks. The Constitution is supreme, not government. The Constitution determines what is legal, not the government. The People are the highest authority, not government.
How did obama become president? How did McCain run? How did biden get into the WH? Are you saying you do not know?? Government is completely lawless! We have not had a Constitutional federal government since Lincoln destroyed our federalism and ripped the Constitution to shreds at the same time.
Harris was VP because people wrongly believe the Constitution and definitions and meanings are open to interpretation. They wrongly believe that government decides everything and has the final word on everything. We have Haley, Rubio, Cruz, Gabbard because people are ignorant (not informed) of and unwilling to obey the Constitution as it was written and defined.
We have few Constitutional laws; few Constitutional agencies. What we have is a judicial branch which has elevated itself above the other branches and the Constitution itself; a judicial branch that exercises legislative and executive branch powers; an executive branch which exercises legislative powers; and a legislature that doesn’t carry out its Constitutional duties.
I am not delusional – my eyes are wide open and I am painfully aware of the state of this Country; painfully aware of the situation we are in; painfully aware of this stark reality.
“How did obama become president? How did McCain run? How did biden get into the WH? Are you saying you do not know?? Government is completely lawless! We have not had a Constitutional federal government since Lincoln destroyed our federalism and ripped the Constitution to shreds at the same time.”
Omg EXACTLY I totally agree .
Now just add all the “natural born citizens”being born to immigrants on that list .
Sigh.
Yaa I knew we end up at this point eventually.
I’m bored , I got a fin in the thigh surfing so can’t do much at the moment
A fin! I get it now. Sounds painful.
I understand bored.
Both circumstances are a lie.
I have posted way more proof than is necessary.
Quotes from the Founders/framers; federal law; court cases, quotes from the framers of the 14th, that Gray illegally changed the meaning of ‘jurisdiction,’ the Constitution.
Other people have posted comments showing that you are wrong, it’s not just me.
You just keep posting Ark and lying about it, too.
Did you not read this or are you just pretending it doesn’t exist?
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971): “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.”
Do you get this??? People who are citizens because of the 14th Amendment are NATURALIZED CITIZENS.
Whats circumstance is a lie ???
That a quarter million natural born citizens are born to undocumented citizens every year ??
People like Boris Johnson getting a tax bill ??
The circumstances/situations you described in your comment: “…present day a child born to non citizens is a natural born citizen or whether the fact the child is a natural born citizen violates the Constitution??”
Neither is accurate.
So I guess Trump’s executive order 14160 was totally pointless and meaningless then ???
What????
Trump’s EO has nothing to do with Rubio not being an NBC. The EO concerns man-made US law.
Natural Born citizen is NATURAL LAW.
That a quarter million natural born citizens are born to undocumented citizens every year ??
That’s a lie. Why do you keep posting lies?
14th Amendment citizens are NATURALIZED citizens. A man-made law made him a citizen. Congress exercising their Constitutional authority to make laws of naturalization.
Johnson got a tax bill because he was a DUAL citizen of US and UK.
Stua, they are in fact not natural born citizens. This is proven by what the framers of the language used in the 14th Amendment say it means. Basically not owing a foreign allegiance.
Most children are born owing an allegiance to the country of which their parents are a citizen. So no, children of illegal aliens are not natural born citizens, let alone citizens.
And FYI, there such a thing as “undocumented citizens” in the law.
A few things I would like to mention here Stua.
Firstly, the Court in Ark made a distinction based on the fact that his parents were domiciled here (legally I might add) at the time of his birth which (in their opinion) made him a citizen, they did not say he was a natural born citizen.
The Court’s opinion was in error because the framers of the 14th Amendment, as recorded in the Congressional Record, made clear what the language of “subject to the jurisdiction” portion of Amendment actually meant. The Court, as noticed in the descent opinion, didn’t even address this. This actually makes the Ark decision ripe for being overruled, that is, if they follow what the language of the Amendment actually means.
While the Court can certainly choose to supplant that meaning with another for enforcement purposes going forward (which would make them wrong again), they can not change the original intent of the wording used.
In addition and a little more in-depth regarding the NBC argument; We have a SCOTUS ruling stating that one portion of the Constitution can not leave another without effect.
The Constitutions makes a distinction when it comes to citizenry. A citizen may hold a lower Office such as a Senator or Congressman, while only a natural born citizen may hold the higher Office of President or Vice-President.
If the Court were ever to rule that a 14th Amendment citizen was a natural born citizen, it would leave the aforementioned Constitutional criteria without effect and would be an unconstitutional ruling and make such a decision ripe for reversal.
Andrew Jackson was born in 1767. He fought in the American Revolution as a child, joining his older brothers at age 13, against the British.
I find the discussion quite enlightening. My twig on the Tree began and then continued because of participants who shared commentary and resources not usual in my daily life. I have gained considerable admiration for Marco Rubio, but I have the opinion we have bent the Constitution too many times to facilitate persons and politics. I hate that our SCOTUS is not respected as nine people who adhere to the Constitution.
So, under your definition, Donald J. Trump is not a “Natural Born citizen” either
His mother was born in Scotland and when he was born she was not yet a citizen.
From Google’s AI:
No, Mary Anne MacLeod, Donald Trump’s mother, was not a US citizen when he was born. She immigrated to the U.S. from Scotland in 1930 and became a naturalized citizen in March 1942, after Donald Trump was born. Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946.
Does AI know the difference between before and after?
It’s IA.
His father.
But his father was a US citizen when Trump was born and one parent had to be a citizen for the child to claim natural born.
Was looking up the Rubio thing and his parents came from Cuba in 1957 but as lgbmiel says above, they didn’t become citizens until 1974, while Rubio was born 1971.
Still wondering what the laws where then for the Cuban refugees; we know they were given a different refugee status than those from any other nation so there may be a loophole that gave the Sec. State a way to run. He ran in 2016 and nobody brought that up so am thinking he would have researched the technicalities and it may be in those technicalities any question about his eligibility get satisfied.
Natural Born citizen requires TWO citizen parents. Born of blood and soil. Both parents are US citizens — jus sanguinis – inherited citizenship from BOTH parents – blood. Born within US borders – jus soli – soil/land.
If one parent is a foreign citizen or a dual citizen — the child inherits that foreign allegiance. It makes no difference if a child never claims the dual citizenship. Being born to a foreign citizen excludes them from Natural Born citizenship.
The Framers wanted to keep foreign influence out of the highest elected office and Commander in Chief of the military.
Neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens. By your way, if anyone ever was born out of the country, every child and child’s child perpetually would be invalid for presidency. It’s preposterous bc we all come from an ancestor that was originally in Africa. Quit arguing impossible scenarios
Do you know when he was born? 1767 – before the US existed.
Article II
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Jackson was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. There were no Natural Born citizens yet.
By your way, if anyone ever was born out of the country, every child and child’s child perpetually would be invalid for presidency.
What? That’s not accurate in any way. That doesn’t make any sense, either. A person is eligible to be president if they are born in the Country and both parents are US citizens when they are born. That makes them a natural born citizen. The parents don’t have to be natural born citizens or born in the Country. The parents can be naturalized citizens.
Article II indicates that Rubio is eligible.
No. It does not. It says Natural Born citizen. Rubio is not an NBC. He is a citizen only because of an unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling which illegally changed the framers meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ in the 14th Amendment. His parents were legal residents of the US and still Cuban Nationals when Rubio was born. A person can only pass their own citizenship to their child.
An NBC is a citizen by Natural Law — not man-made laws. Congress can create naturalized citizens, not Natural Born. Rubio is a citizen because of an Act of Congress – a man-made law. It is impossible for him to be an NBC.
Wasn’t this the issue with Jopn McCain who was born in the Canal Zone. I remember some discussion about this and I think Congress may have passed something to enable it. This was an issue at that time.
Don’t forget Obama cracked this egg with his Nigerian father. It didn’t matter then. That can’t be undone and we are stuck with its implications going forward. Hence the discussion about Rubio.
One house of the government passed a non-binding resolution in regards to McCain.
A citizen by legislation is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.
.
The Constitution provides for a period of time (in order for there to be two citizens mating and having children together, children that then attain the age of 35, so 1825 under the best of conditions) where a ‘citizen’ could be the executive.
No. His mother became a citizen in 1942 FOUR YEARS BEFORE President Trump was born.
Trusting AI is like trusting the human (or are they?) staff of Googlevil.
It’s simply the well-known computer phenomenon GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out.
If the data is bad the result will be too, no matter how fast and comprehensive.
Completely agree.
What you posted in bold clearly states Mary was a already a citizen when Donald born. So was his father. He inherited their citizenship naturally at birth. They had citizenship to pass on. Rubio did not inherit, or have naturally USA citizenship because his parents did not have it to give. NBC is inherited. Naturalized is given through law.
.
Huh?
What is written in bold makes no mathematical sense . . .
Since when is March 1942 after June 1946??
That may be true, but the Obama precedent will win the day for Rubio, or Cruz, for that matter.
This, right here. Precedent has been set. I wouldn’t expect the John Roberts court to reverse it.
If Rubio remains in the spotlight as 2028 approaches you can look to the democrats to put pressure on the courts if they feel this is the only way to stop an inevitable Rubio win. We should really call the democrats the “pretzel party” as they will twist themselves and the law as much as needed to show their own desired end result.
Roberts himself will be “reversed”.
People misuse precedent. This is a good explanation of it by a Constitutional lawyer:
The “common law” applied in courts in the English-speaking countries came from the Bible.7 The Bible has much to say about our relations with each other: don’t murder people, don’t maim them, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness, don’t tell lies about people, don’t be negligent, don’t cheat or defraud people, and such. The Bible provides for Judges to decide disputes between people and empowers Judges to require the person who has violated these precepts to pay restitution to the person whom he harmed. So, e.g., the Biblical prohibitions against bearing false witness and slandering people became our modern day concepts of slander, libel, and defamation. These principles were applied in the English courts from time immemorial, and are applied in American Courts. Modern day American attorneys litigate these common law concepts all the time. So if I am representing a client in an action for say, fraud, I look at the previous court opinions in the jurisdiction on fraud, and see how the courts in that jurisdiction have defined fraud – i.e., I look for “precedents” – the courts’ previous opinions on the subject – and I expect the Judge on my case to obey that precedent. 8
THIS is the “common law”. It is “law” in the sense that it originated with God’s Word; and from “time immemorial” has been applied in the Courts of English speaking countries. But this precedent is binding or persuasive only on courts. 9 As precedent for judges to follow, it is never “the law of the land”!
So, keep these three categories – organic, statutory, and common law – separate, and do not confuse court precedent with the “Law of the Land”. The latter is restricted to the Organic Law, and statutes and treaties authorized by the Organic Law. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/precedents/
Precedent is only valid for courts. obama, the DNC and RNC committed a crime. A non-natural born citizen as president will always be a crime. Unless the Constitution is amended.
.
Do any of you have the utmost confidence that you have been told the TRUTH on the actual birth circumstances (parents, place) of Obama?
The man is a known liar.
What better lie to tell than ‘making’ people believe that his birth story, as told by him, garnered him eligibility to be president, in order to schmooze a vote out of ignorant souls, which, in doing so (voting for an ineligible president) has the same effect as voting to do away with the Constitution?
Then, promote an actual ineligible person (Harris — although she was in that position illegitimately; and multiple others from both parties) that ends up getting elected and assert THEN that the Constitution has been voted to be done away with.
Sneaky, huh.
.
And lest anyone forget, Nancy Pelosi is the one that vouched for Obama’s eligibility, saying she had seen the birth certificate but she did not want to release it to the public because it would be embarrassing for his family.
What was so embarrassing about that pdf Barry’s office released — other than it was an obvious fake . . .?
Would the American people elect a person if they knew his true father was a communist pornographer named Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii and the same groomer of a young 17 year old teenager, named Stanley Anne Dunham, who is THAT candidates Mother?
Would the American people, if they knew the truth, elect the man who was also groomed by his father, that same communist pornographer? Nancy Pelosi and B. Hussein Obama deserve the biggest traitor punishment there ever could be. Benedict Arnold is a piker compared to those two.
.
Quite agree!
Well, Chicago Jesus wasn’t either .. he wasn’t even raised in this country as an American citizen..
obama’s father was a foreign citizen also. His presidency was a crime and blatant violation of the Constitution.
You want the Republican party to do the same thing? Blatantly violate the Constitution? I won’t do that. I won’t support someone who is Constitutionally ineligible, either.
If the BHO Kenyan ancestry is true, then you’re right.
However, I disbelieve that, and believe that BHO’s dad is Frank Marshal Davis, the Communist Poet, that was a US citizen.
Yes, I’ve seen that many times.
I’m not arguing or disagreeing with you, but that’s irrelevant unless it is legally recognized with an updated BC. I don’t see that ever happening.
Ogabe is a Davis/Davis spawn. And a relative of Jeff.
I apologize, I don’t know what that means.
well that’s a new one for me: “…Chicago Jesus” …😆🤣🤣
Mulatto Messiah.
Seriously?
At this early a date in this administration?
When would have Sec. Rubio’s come to Jesus moment have happened?
Is it possible the IC may have slipped up on the kompromat on him enabling him to make the decision to become America First?
I pray to almighty God that there will be a worthy successor to President Trump and President Reagan!
Yale!
,,, and the Silicone Valley tech biggies (Thiel, etc.)
Peace between Russia and Ukraine may be just around the corner but I can’t see around corners.
I wonder if one could buy one of those mirrors on Amazon!
Agree it seems to be a bridge too far with our Senate, IC, deep state and EU wanting to keep the war going!
Sundance,
I trust you and I trust your assessment of Rubio and his performance thus far. However, I do not trust Rubio per se. Once a Neocon always a Neocon. I understand we need to get the domestic agenda passed first and I hold onto the hope that Trump will be able to solve the Ukraine conflict.
Yes, he is performing admirably. However, he is a creature from the DC cesspool.
It is a dilemma.
If wishes were fishes…
🐟🐠🐡🦈
I am going to kick this up to a higher power. 🙏
We are going to need some guidance here.
🙏
Always the best idea, Lorrie. Thank you.
The garden path can be so lovely this time of year, but ouch! what bit me? With politics we can never get too comfortable. I thought it was a good look at both Rubio and Vance. I also liked what they said. TWT–time will tell.
Rubio is a snake.
Actions speak louder than words and so far, Rubio is doing very well. Could easily surpass Vance as the guy in ’28 if this continues especially with the tech bro exposure.
Slightly trust but verify.
But is pretending to be MAGA? How can we tell it’s not all an act and once elected he becomes a Rhino??
Watch his speech
In 2015, Rubio was the only candidate that had a financial backer who attended the Bilderberg meeting.
Many years ago, in 2011 or so, back in the days when I was routinely listening to Rush Limbaugh, he made a comment about Rubio that caught my attention. Now this was at about the time when Rubio became a Florida U.S. Senator.
He flat out said that one day Rubio would be President. Soon after I heard that I quit listening to Rush because I sensed that Rush might not be the transparently honest broadcaster I thought he was. Was he actually in-with-the-in crowd? Were his views being molded by higher ups who actively sought to tip the scales in favor of their “secret” agenda? who were also guiding Rush in that direction? thereby guiding his listeners as well?
Rush had not said that Rubio “might” be president one day — he clearly said that Rubio would be president.
Nothing to it or something?
America First! He spoke like he’s been converted. Lord may it be true. His comments about JD? We’ll see
It’s an easy concept to accept and convert to, especially if you haven’t gotten rich in office. Rubio’s net worth is less than AOC’s.
What will it take for him to backslide?
When he is not immersed within Maga can he still walk the walk?
Or maybe freed?
You don’t know what is in the bill until you pass it!
Going to be kind of awkward Vance and Rubio running against each other. Imagine Trump endorsing Rubio over Vance.. awkward.
Realistic?
That speech that SD posted at the end of the article is as enthusiastically and seriously pro-America First as most of the President’s speeches.
This was not a speech just read off the Teleprompter, but one that Marco Rubio obviously believes in his gut. He was even ad libbing a few times, expounding on a solid point.
If this was acting, it was better than any acting I’ve seen in a politician.
Agree; Rubio’s speech was very pro America First.
Then, Vance stepped up to give his speech and noticed while listening it was like I was listening to one of those Peanuts specials where the voice of the adults was all waa-waa-waa and realized VP Vance is simply saying words but no real passion was coming through.
Compare this video of Rubio speaking to an audience And the Rubio in 2015 debate where he kept repeating phrases, ultimately to be dismantled by PDJT and RINO from New Jersey.
This 2025 Rubio speech is quite impressive, imho.
A lot of hard truth over 9 years can be quite impactful to a young man who has been immersed in deceitful surroundings.
The comparison of his current communication (debating) skills versus 2015 are amazing.
*That is not a commentary on his sincerity.
I closely watched the 2015 debates. Rubio’s metamorphosis is incredible.
He is adept at the “off the cuff” verbal gems as well.
*Still, I am closely watching.
We need MAGA candidates for 2026. That is vital despite patriot exhaustion
over the totality of legislators succumbing to the DC rot.
It’s not acting if you haven’t been thoroughly corrupted yet. They all become thoroughly corrupted though if in the politics long enough. Rubio is probably acting nowadays. He’s probably making his mind think back to those days of yore but in fact he’s compromised.
Just because Rubio appeared to be compromised while in the Senate Intel Committee does not necessarily confirm that he was/is actually compromised. He may have been “going along go get along.”
Acting can work either way.
But did Rubio make any impassioned speeches in favor of globalism and against what can be characterized as an “America First” basis for policy?
He can simply go along with who he perceived as most influential by way of votes in senate sessions or informal votes in committees.
Yes thst strategy could be applied either way but the speeches and impromptu responses to questions in hearings cannot always be disingenuous without some telltale wording or mannerisms visible to “face readers”.
Is Rubio an unusually good actor / deceiver? Maybe. But maybe not.
Ultimately only President Trump’s and foreign officials’ (with whom Rubio interacts) opinions of Rubio counts. Until 2028…when Rubio will need a majority of voters to believe his genuineness.
Agree on “going along to get along”
… and given he was in the Belly of the Deep State BEAST, he might have needed-and-decided to “go along to SURVIVE”
… until he could maneuver into a position with enough protection and power to “shine enough SUNLIGHT in the right places at the most propitious moments” to start reversing the tide!
I don’t know why, but something just feels so off. Like we’re living in a non-reality within a larger actual reality. I am not well-versed politically in any academic or professional way, but with regard to political foresight, I’ve had good instincts or antenna that has allowed me to accurately foresee some things, like how Trump was our best hope from the very beginning. I do believe that the big beautiful bill has to pass first but then Trump must face down the traitorous parts of government he is supposed control and doesn’t yet. But what I can’t fathom is how, or what will that confrontation look like if congress keeps funding the war and the IC keeps directing it. And what’s Ratcliiffe’s real role in all of it.
Rubio is indeed impressive in his dual role. At this early point, I really, REALLY hope it’s genuine because I’m increasingly not liking the alternative…as much as I’ve enjoyed listening to the Vice President over these same early months.
Rubio and Trump are wise to keep mostly silent about “Z”‘s attack on the bombers. Notice that “Z” immediately shot his wad about the whole thing in what was supposed to be a “peace” conference. He got silence in response, and that was exactly the right thing to do. As Russia has observed, “Z” is trying hard to play the media.
Russia will respond. Oh yes, they will. But you won’t know what, nor when, nor where.
Ukraine seems to have at least one less patriot defense system as they wake up, way over on the East side of Ukraine.
Also, I am starting to buy in to the rumors that the Russian “bombers” damaged were already scrapped for parts, but that whole op seems mainly preformative.
The terrorist like attacks on the civilian trains is the game changer. London might be nervous.
Convienient Graphic supplied by a London newspaper:
The UK reader’s reaction should be, “then why do we keep provoking him?”
If UK citizens had even a mote of control over their government, the fait accompli demographic invasion would have stopped long ago. At this point they as a nation have already lain down in the grave, and are now just waiting for the soil.
A sad end for Britannia … sunset cometh.
Alas Victoria.
It will be the same for us as soon as a dem gets in office again. And every time after that. The American people, like the uk’s people, simply don’t care about anything further from reach than their kids school.
All nine of those placed inside the loop around London would be more effective in solving Russia’s and the world’s problems.
If by Z you really mean the IC, then you would be correct
Trading It All Away, by Marco Rubio, American Compass, December 10, 2021
Also included in Oren Cass’ new book The New Conservatives
Rubio is the real deal. That’s 2021.
I’m still watching to see which way JD Vance breaks. Is his a temporary convergence of interests with the tech bros, like 47’s temporary alliance with Elon, or is it something deeper? We shall see.
https://americancompass.org/trading-it-all-away/
Marco Rubio was on the Senate Commitee when intelligence staffer James Wolfe gave the FISA to a reporter. Rubio knew that, but said/did nothing.
This was a BIG DEAL and should be always remembered when Rubio is discussed.
Watch the video
Tremendous advantage to limiting the people in tbe loop on sensative info
What Tulsi’s doing with the PDB narrative is HILARIOUS, luv watching Brennan & Co
lose their minds cuz the hull on THIS ship is TIGHT!!!
Trump is making it hard to be on Team Rogue, wish there was a way to eliminate the expiration on the tax cuts AND support critical govt functions while turning off the faucet everywhere else
It was nice to hear him admit/realize that he helped pass a law that now impedes him from doing what needs to be done in the executive branch. At the 1:30 to 1:58 minute mark.
Yes.
re: “about how the Federal Reserve was created to enslave us in constant debt”
Um, sorry, but yawn …
What is the FED?
That would be loans, and the credit card. All were accepted willingly by sovereign countries, and the credit card by the people, but I get your point on the religion of those pushed for them, and how European royalty held off on accepting the loans until they couldn’t. War does evil beyond the killing, especially when you have the ability to finance both sides.
Rubio has done a good job thus far, but it’s still a huge leap to believe he has changed.
Time will tell.
.
I have known and watched Rubio for a long time. I’ve got to admit that I’ve been going back in my mind and rethinking facts over literally 30+ years, and reassessing a lot.
.
I really didn’t like Tulsi when I was in Kauai many years ago.
People grow?
.
Not sure that this is about Rubio or about what a young ambitious guy who didn’t come from a fancy family, go to a fancy school, distinguish himself in the military or business or academia or in some other way had to do to claw his way up through Florida then federal politics.
What we have to discern now is to figure out, separate, what he has had to do along that trajectory (e.g. as Jeb! ‘s stepnfetchit, and then in Congress, and now as Trump’s SOS), from what he believes in and would do as his own man if put into power. I don’t know yet. Two things in his favor are apparently not cashing in on his connex along the way, and having Trump as mentor.
.
He seems a tad buzzed, maybe it is fatigued, he has been very busy of late. The hair was too big. LOL!
My entire life Iran has been going to get nuclear weapons, they are always on the cusp of getting them.
JD always reminds me of the way a Civil War General looked. He has a 1860’s face.
I prefer the Treehouse Think Tank, I wish those in the Swamp would too.
If Secretary of State Rubio is advising the President, than just based on the past week, I’d say I’m having more confidence. President Trump oftentimes would fly off the handle and he’s been very much measured especially with the Ukrainian attack deep inside Russia. The other thing, after watching the video is that SoS Rubio was not using a teleprompter – which shows a genuine knowledge the tenants of MAGA. I noticed this when Zelensky was in the Oval Office for the famous Z “melt down”. So it’s interesting to see both Rubio and VP JD Vance.
I’m cautiously encouraged.
We do not need to choose between Rubio and Vance. Why not Vance pres and Rubio vice. Then Rubio is lined up to be Pres. in 36. A dynasty. We can dream-and what we dream about comes about often. Or we go where our dreams take us.
Then Charlie Kirk in 2044. Then Barron Trump in 2052. Then my boy Rufus in 2060.
We will if one or the other is not as MAGA as they have been presented as.
Most thought DeSantis was MAGA and a shoe-in for President after President Trump… now we see him for what he actually was, a manufactured product meant to be sold to MAGA and then betray it.
Mr. Vance has Techbro (i.e. total surveillance state) and Indian connections and a massaged backstory with notable similarities to the one used to sell Obama.
Mr. Rubio has his past record in the senate.
The notable difference right now is that Mr. Rubio is admitting his past mistakes as mistakes in addition to engaging in pushing President Trump’s agenda. We’ll see if Mr. Vance does the same about his concerning issues.
The speed at which some posters are trying to name who will the potus of the future is crazy and unproductive. We need to support President Trump and to BE HERE NOW. What a waste of precious time.
I don’t think Marco Rubio has been the same since he took charge of AARO years agi. . His facial expressions took on the look of fear. Bless him.
Spot on with this. It’s been baked in the cake for awhile, but Elon wasn’t in on, and still isn’t aware of, this deal. It pivots around Rubio, whom The Blob recognizes as the guardian of ‘keeping the Main Thing, the Main Thing.’
Rubio’s parents escaped communist Cuba. He knows the score.
And where our real challenges lie.
My mama gave birth to me with the top half of her body on the U.S. side of the border and the bottom half of her body on the Mexican side of the border. Therefore, I am both a U.S. and Mexican citizen. It was my papa’s idea to position my mama on the ground on the border in that way. He was such a smart man.
You’re splitting hairs, Beard.
A person with a beard on the top half of their body might also have a brain located on the bottom half of their body and in no way resemble Abe Lincoln.
And just when did the planning for this proxy war with Russia begin? Obama, Trump 1, Biden?
Obama sat back on the seizure of Crimea, which Nikita Khruschev gave to Ukraine in 1954 and Russia wanted back. Trump 1 just wanted to get along with everyone. Biden was too addled for majestic schemes, so I’ll lay this at the beginning of Biden with Jake Sullivan and Samantha Power. Perhaps a few other supporting voices.
Trigger 1: The September goad (via Biden) to Zelensky that Ukraine join NATO, later memorialized in November 2021 with the “U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership”,
I think PDJT47 knew that that the Uke war would create problems if it wasn’t solved quickly. It wasn’t, and here we are.
It’s a game of leverage.
I am pleased by Rubio’s actions up to this point. Better than expected for sure.
one big problem i see is people have been strongly lead to believe that Russia has lost so many troops that they can’t stand much more, it needs to be adressed.
I still don’t trust him, but I am willing to keep an open mind.
I might be a bull in a china shop. President Trump having to walk a tight rope to keep us out of WWIII and trying to bail out our economic situation is too much for me. A few of the key “opponents” need to be arrested. It will prove once and for all that there is a downside for the Deep State trying to run the country.
I never cared for identity politics in any way shape or form, which is one reason I disregarded Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz both, when people were talking them up as “full-throated conservatives” or “Constitutional conservatives” back in 2015-2016.
I wasn’t having any of that open borders, bi-lingual, historic “first Hispanic-American” globalist crap then and I’m not having it now, for certain.
People are wondering why Marco Rubio has not said anything about Lindsey Grahams jaunts over to Ukraine.
Are we to believe that Blumenthal and Graham suddenly both turned good too?
Rubio appears to me to be atoning for his involvement in RussiaGate and I believe he is sincere in his present stances.
Further, I will not be surprised if in any investigation that reaches the SCCI that Rubio spills ALL the beans, not to spare himself but simply to get it all out and eliminate any leverage others may believe they have on him.
Whatever the swamp had/has on Rubio, he’s done a 180. I can’t tell if that means they don’t have much on him and he’s really changed and seen the light, or if this is another manchurian candidate scenario. If he keeps going and starts to really hurt the swamp’s interests that might convince me.
The lawn service part of you all “out in the weeds”.
Rubio for prez
say focused
Putin said he will have to respond strongly to Ukraine attack and would assist with Iran mediation
Let’s not avoid the fact that much of the “Intelligence Community” is essentially a law unto itself, aided and abetted by a cadre of lawmakers. The CIA will continue to do as it pleases, with or without the President’s knowledge or approval. That head of the snake needs to be amputated, but apparently timing is everything.
Maybe Trump group could not stop the hit on Russia. The ”strategists” (Lindsay Graham and friends) with no military experience or education who have watched too many movies thought this attack was very slick and just before the meet up in Turkey would compel Russia to bend.Ukraine/CIA have lost this war and are desperate to freeze it.That is what a ceasefire is,its the last resort of the side that has lost and wants to prevent a collapse.Russia didnt react emotionally ,but I expect they will wrap this war up soon, and there is nothing short of nukes that can save the deep state’s army from obvious defeat. There can be no ”peace”talks ,there will be a meeting to sign the documents of surrender. They will do what Japan did aboard the USS Missouri, the instrument of surrender was signed on September 2, 1945, I’m sure the venue for Ukraine and its handlers will be equally symbolic .
I like what Sundance is saying here and I agree that if Rubio runs in 2028 and if it’s a binary choice between him and Vance, I will support Rubio because we know that he’s a genuine Catholic through and through along with his wife. Also he has more experience than Vance and has more charisma.
Rubio is also more known than Vance and will have strong appeal with Hispanic voters in a genuine way since he’s fluent in the language (unlike a Ted Cruz)
The only question is who would be his VP? I would suggest that Rubio has some good choices such as Tulsi Gabbard, Howard Lutnick, and even Kristi Noem, who to me, has been better than advertised at Homeland Security!
What happens to Vance? Assuming he loses which I don’t think is likely (unfortunately), but nonetheless for the sake of this post, he would be in the political wilderness. I am very skeptical of his recent Catholic conversion and his rise to prominence strikes me too much like that of Barack Obama. If he becomes president in 2028, he would have done so in the space of time unlike any seen in politics since Obama. In the space of what would have been his first senate term (2022-2028), he would have gone from Senator to VP to President!
The Republican electorate typically don’t do this for a candidate with so little life experience. The only other in history as a Republican would be Theodore Roosevelt and before that Abraham Lincoln! I don’t think Vance is on par with either man but we shall see!
Chess match… President Trump is. Master!
Peace, if possible, truth at all costs.
~Martin Luther
Whoops…reply to post way upthread. sorry.
I’m still in the verify path of trust but verify with Rubio. That said, I’m seeing his path to 2028 over Vance. Definitely to be watched.
Please be advised that SoS Marco Rubio is not an Art. II, §1, Cl. 5 natural-born citizen.
Little Marco either got Trump religion or another massive injection of ambition in his ass.
The Trump Government is Reversing the Globalist Business Model. The Trump Government is overruling the Globalist Corporations. It would seem that the Government has the ultimate power. Throw in the ability to domestically investigate anyone and the might of the military to wage war, it seems obvious where the decision making power sits.
Sundance I’d like to think that your expositions on the proxy war with Russia through Ukraine will help immensely with public knowledge and therefore public support for President Trump’s efforts at resolving a mess we should have never been involved in. Your posts are increasingly widely read and shared.
Of course, if “we” weren’t I suppose it would never have happened.
Why cover for Mark Warner? That’s all I need to know about Rubio.
Absolutely – Rubio is indeed the biggest and best surprise.
It was very noticeable that when Elon called for President Trump’s impeachment and replacement by J.D. Vance, Vance did not publicly rebuke that idea. His silence was deafening. If I had to vote for our 2028 nominee now, I would vote Rubio by a mile.