Rubio looks like presidential candidate as ‘Team Marco 2016′ meets

by
January 23, 2015

rubiomdc
As “Team Marco 2016″ gathers at the Delano Hotel in Miami Beach today and tomorrow to talk strategy and finance for Sen. Marco Rubio, it looks like the 2016 race in question will be for president rather than for a second term in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

lRubio has told top advisers to prepare as if he’s running for the White House and has tapped Anna Rogers of the conservative super PAC American Crossroads to lead fundraising efforts — developments that were first reported by ABC News.

Rubio plans to go on a fundraising swing next week to California, Texas and Chicago on behalf of his Reclaim America PAC.

24 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • Ralphinphnx says:

    Stuff and nonsense, don’t you believe it folks,since after all the USA Voters did elect a foreigner from Kenya to be President! Remember “Barack Hussein Obama”?…Deport Evil Teddy Bear Ted Cruz, Willard Mittens Romney and Bobby Jindal back to their native countries!

  • rockyvnvmc says:

    Another Ineligible, would be, candidate for the Presidency…
    He’s a Trojan Horse, just like Cruz is. If they were true Constitutional Conservatives, they wouldn’t be throwing their hats into the ring.
    Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and possibly Santorum (more investigating needed here) are all just as Ineligible as Obama/Soetoro and for the very same reasons. All of them have one or both parents who were Foreign Nationals, at the time of their births, forever denying them the requisite Natural Born Citizen status, as our Framers understood it to mean. Cruz was even born in a foreign country!
    If we allow yet Another ineligible person to assume the off ice of the POresidency, we will have created a precedence, whereby anyone can be allowed to assume the Presidency, whether a NBC or not. We would likely end up having the ‘Governator’ become the Presidentator !

    1. Robert Wilson says:

      Why not Jane Fonda,(joke), well maybe President of North Korea.

    2. redpatriotmom says:

      Cruz is a natural born citizen… just as The children of our Military that are born overseas. This is a remark made by left wingers to hurt Cruz’s chance. Cruz’s parents were both citizens before his birth.

      1. rockyvnvmc says:

        redpatriotmom ; Cruz was born in Canada and his father was a Canadian National, at the time of his birth.

        I am Not a ‘Left Winger’, just a Constitutional Conservative.

        According to our Framer’s understanding of the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’, which came directly from Emmerich d’ Vattel’s book, ‘Laws of Nations’, two copies of which were brought to the Constitutional Convention by Benjamin Franklin, who deposited one copy in the adjacent library, while the other was passed throughout the Convention and widely read and understood by everyone there, A Natural Born Citizen was ‘a citizen child, born in the country, of two citizen parents.’ The ‘Laws of Nations’ was widely utilized in our nation’s colleges and universities for a century thereafter.

        It all began when Convention Delegate John Jay (not yet Supreme Court Justice) wrote to the Chairman of the Convention, George Washington (not yet President) asking if it wouldn’t be pertinent to place a strong check to the position of Commander-in-Chief devolving upon any with strong foreign influences. The “NBC” provision was thereafter adopted, without recorded discussion.

        From the NPR;
        http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration

        “Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas,” Ted Cruz says of his father, “and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream.”

        Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born. His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out. He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted’s mother, an American citizen. The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

        “I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.”

        The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 — 48 years after leaving Cuba. Why did he take so long to do it?

        “I don’t know. I guess laziness, or — I don’t know,” he says.

        1. redpatriotmom says:

          Again incorrect.. #1 You only need one American parent to be a Natural Born Citizen… #2 Naturalization Act of 1790 Said that a child could be born overseas Or across our borders… They tried doing this to McCain too. If you were correct.. that would be the argument hands down concerning Obama, because Obamas father was never ever a citizen of the US. All it takes is one parent to be a citizen. Show me the real law.. not someone’s perception of the law.

          1. rockyvnvmc says:

            While the Constitution does not define who a Natural Born Citizen would be, it is apparent, from reading the history of the times, just who the term was referring to. Especially considering the influence of Vattel’s book ‘Laws of Nations’, which was used extensively during the Constitutional Convention and the context of John Jay’s letter to Washington, on the subject.

            ‘The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”. It specifies that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens” — the only U.S. statute to ever use the term “natural born citizen”.’
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
            Because Cruz’ father didn’t become a Naturalized American Citizen until 2005, this would effectively preclude ‘Ted’ from being eligible.

            Don’t get me wrong, I like Ted Cruz, as a Senator. But he has to know that he’s not eligible and yet is throwing his hat in the ring anyways ? He can’t be a true Constitutional Conservative, if he does that.

            Oddly enough, we have numerous supposed ‘Conservatives’ who are indicating that they wish to pursue the Presidency, who are in similar circumstances. Rubio, Jindal and Santorum (more investigation needed here) all have similar issues concerning their being eligible, due to a lack of NBC status and for the very same reasons that Obama wasn’t eligible and Cruz isn’t eligible. All of them had one, or both parents who were foreign nationals at the time of their births. This bothers me to no end. If these people were ‘Establishment’ Republicans or RINOs, I could understand it, but since they portray themselves as ‘Constitutional Conservatives’, yet are no more eligible that our current Squatter in the People’s House, why should we trust them ? I, most assuredly, do not !

        2. redpatriotmom says:

          The issue is not citizenship…. The founders were concerned about a leader with Allegiance to another Country.

          1. rockyvnvmc says:

            John Jay used the words ‘undue foreign influences’, with regards to the prohibition of persons with such, which I believe, being born to an other than American father, in a foreign country and then living in said foreign country for a period, before coming to this country would comply with.

  • votemout2010 says:

    Rubio sold out conservatives with his participation in gang of eight bill. Zero Credibility after that for me!

    1. Robert Wilson says:

      Well said.

  • Please; do not too excited with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as a 2016 GOP Presidential candidate. Remember the ‘illegal’ immigration better known as the Gang of 8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/28/immigrations-gang-of-8-who-are-they/

    The Senate’s so-called “Gang of Eight” bill, which the Obama Administration
    supports without exception, provides amnesty to most of the 11 million illegal
    immigrants in the country, provided they meet a set of legal conditions and
    jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops. While the conventional wisdom
    states that Gang of Eight is dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House, nobody really knows what the final product will look like–or whether there will even be a final vote on it at all. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/09/03/border-patrol-agents-don-t-pass-gang-of-eight-immigration-bill/

    1. Robert Wilson says:

      How much was paid to the new member to make it “gang of nine?”

      1. Ralphinphnx says:

        And, I say it’s all US Senator John “Juan” McCain’s fault!

  • chris berrian says:

    No more senators, congressman or attorneys holding any high offices. Especially President. Too much power for these liers.

    1. I Seigel says:

      Yes, much better to have an ophthalmologist or a pizza guy running the country.

      1. chris berrian says:

        Yes they might not be such professional lies. You are correct bud.

        1. Robert Wilson says:

          What country did this law emanate?

          1. chris berrian says:

            Read the post or look it up.

        2. I Seigel says:

          I’m missing your point here.
          The purpose of the amendment was to make sure we did not adopt a system of royalty, titles, etc., and to forbid officeholders from accepting same from other countries.

          1. chris berrian says:

            You mean like dictatorship? Yes that’s pretty much it.

          2. chris berrian says:

            Here brother check this out. This is in the Congress library also so here’s a link justfor curiosity sake http://uhuh.com/constitution/am13-pen.htm
            I apologize I had the dates off a the wrong state that ratified it.
            good luck.

      2. Robert Wilson says:

        At present, even a shine boy.

    2. Robert Wilson says:

      Let’s change the numbers of MANDATES AND VETOES a president can use, this would relinquish some of this power to the Congress where it belongs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.