Tag Archive for: Marco Rubio

Why Natural Born Citizen is Non-Negotiable

/in , , , , /by

Not so long ago, Americans placed little faith and trust in ambulance chasers (a.k.a. lawyers) or politicians, and wisely so according to our Founders who had no faith or trust in any person seeking power and dominion over others. Now, too many Americans place all of their faith in people seeking power and dominion over others, and even worse, a class of people who have already proven most dangerous to the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law… the lawyer law-makers…

Ever since Barack Obama stole the show at the Kerry Convention in 2004 and rocketed from total obscurity to the most powerful political office in our land four years later, the subject of Article II requirements for the Oval Office has been a subject of great debate, all over three simple words, natural born Citizen (NBC), aka “True Citizen.”

Where did it come from, what does it mean, why did our Founders limit access to only two political offices in our nation to no one other than a natural born Citizen, and what do we do now that we know Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States? These questions have been the source of much political debate, confusion and anxiety, now threatening the GOP as a result of numerous potential 2016 GOP candidates also failing to meet the requirement.

Some of the most blatantly insane arguments have been floated…

“Well, the constitution does not provide a definition for the term”… which is of course true, since the U.S. Constitution provides no definition for any word found in the document.

“Our naturalization laws define natural born Citizen” (when in fact our naturalization laws only pertain to naturalized citizens, immigrants seeking basic citizen rights from congress).

“The courts will have to tell us what the term means”… despite knowing that it is the courts that created terms of art like “undocumented citizen” (a.k.a. illegal alien) and “Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and even enemy combatants” (while denying American citizen any constitutional protection of natural rights at all) and “social justice” (the opposite of real justice under Constitutional Law).

Others rely upon “legal scholars” also known as lawyers of the political class in line for political appointments and eager to please those in positions to help them ascend to those lofty positions in the judiciary, ignoring the reality that these scholars have powerful political motivations for the opinions they write, and that no opinion has the power to amend the U.S. Constitution except by amendment process.

The simple truth is that Article II of the U.S. Constitution has only been amended once in U.S. history, by Amendment XII extending the requirements for President to the Vice President as well. It has not been otherwise amended, despite at least eight failed attempts by Congress to eliminate the natural born requirement for high office. Further, no amendment has ever mentioned, changed or in any way altered the original meaning of natural born Citizen as intended by our Founders and ratified by all fifty states.

So, the term natural born Citizen means the same today as it did in 1787 when the Founders placed that requirement in Article II… unless you buy into the notion that naturalization statutes or amendments, or scholarly legal arguments carry with them the legal force to amend the constitution – in which case, the term has no meaning at all, and neither does anything else in our Founding documents.

Before Barack Obama arrived on the scene, the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no verifiable past, not too many Americans ever thought about the term. Most Americans assumed that no one would ever be bold enough to attempt such a massive fraud by falsely claiming natural born eligibility, and they assumed that if anyone ever did make such an attempt, our strict election laws, free press and national security agency oversight would surely catch it, expose it and stop it from happening. These assumptions have proven to be wrong… in fact, such attempts are now becoming common place. Barack was the first, but now there are others…

Most Americans have entered the discussion from a purely political purpose, attempting to either qualify their political messiah of choice, or disqualify another. But the natural born Citizen concept is actually far more important to our society than merely who can and cannot hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

I was recently asked a question I have been asked literally thousands of times since I started writing on the subject, how do I know for sure what the Founders meant by natural born Citizen?

How do we know what any word or phrase means? Most people reach to their book shelf and grab a dictionary when they want to know the true definition of a word of phrase. Most people have never come upon a word or phrase that they needed a lawyer, or a court, or anything more than a dictionary to properly interpret… I find this to be the case here as well.

People don’t have any trouble understanding the word “born” (the moment of birth) or the word “citizen” (a legal member of a society). The word people seem to struggle with is “natural.”

At this moment, a collective effort is underway to claim that the following three words are synonymous… natural – native – naturalized…. Which would make anyone eligible for the Oval Office, including the courts new citizen class the “undocumented citizen.”

People trying to disqualify John McCain in 2008 decided that natural and native are synonymous terms and people now trying to qualify Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are claiming that natural, native and naturalized are all synonymous terms of art. Before they can eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II, they must first make the term ambiguous, potentially having more than one meaning… of course…

Any dictionary will disagree with these claims…

Naturalized – “to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.”

Native – “being the place or environment in which a person was born.”

Natural – “existing in or formed by nature.”

Clearly, these three words have three very different definitions and meanings, only one of which is related to the Constitutional requirement for the Oval Office… “Natural.”

As a simple dictionary review confirms, these three words are in no way synonymous. It is not possible for the following three terms to be synonymous, natural born, native born and naturalized. Yet, many will continue to make the false claim that they are… because they believe these claims to suit their political agenda of the moment.

Many know exactly what natural born Citizen means, and still, for political expediency, they refuse to stand on this truth. Just this morning another “political commentator” wrote me this…

“NATIVE BORN CITIZENS ARE DIFFERENT… .. I see the reference to the father’s citizenship alone as determinING the birthright of the child… BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT AINT GONNA FLY today NO MORE THAN DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU WILL ALIENATE HALF THE COUNTRY WITH SUCH NONSENSE” – Scott Rohter (exactly as sent to me, yelling caps and all)

As you can see, Mr. Rohter first confirms that he is aware of the truth, before shifting to all CAPS to scream his refusal to stick to the truth, referring to that truth as “nonsense” because that truth will offend some who do not like this truth. It is this practice which has made the NBC term appear “ambiguous,” opening the door for the lawyer law-making political class to enter the discussion with new invented definitions of the term.

As Mr. Rohter confirmed in our exchange, we agree on 99% of the issues… unfortunately, the 1% we disagree on is the most important – of critical importance, especially at this moment in history, when every American must deal only in truth. Mr. Rohter is not alone in his position. Numerous others have made the same false claims for exactly the same reasons.

The Harvard Lawyers are intentionally lying to the people when claiming NBC is synonymous with naturalized citizen at birth. But people like Rohter are also intentionally lying to the people for their set of political reasons. Both are responsible for allowing unconstitutional candidates to seek and hold the most powerful office in our land, that of Commander-in-Chief.

The term natural born Citizen is based on historical concepts as old as all recorded time. If you want to know where and why the Founders borrowed the term for Article II, I cover that in this piece… and if you want to know the true historical definition of the term, I cover that in this piece.

Natural born Citizen is a term based in biblical teachings based upon the concepts of a patriarchal society wherein in the Father is the head of the family unit. The intentional destruction of the family unit has greatly complicated the discussion with scholarly changes in the definition of words like marriage, family and shifting gender roles forced by liberal restructuring of American society, also for political purposes.

14th Naturalization Amendment terms like “citizen at birth” and “birthright citizenship” have been intentionally been tossed into the mix to further complicate the understanding of three basic English words defined in every English dictionary. The purpose of all these efforts is to eliminate the NBC requirement for office by simply redefining the term. But that is not the only purpose…

Setting politics aside for a moment, natural born Citizenship is the inalienable natural right of every child to inherit the country of their natural birth father upon birth, not only due to no application of man-made statute or legal opinions, but inalienable by these means.

When people begin to play with definitions, it is an overt effort to alter our Founding principles and values and Constitutional protections of all inalienable Natural Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a much larger issue than who can or cannot occupy the Oval Office, although this is indeed an issue paramount to the sovereignty and security of these United States.

Contrary to the intentional mis-education of American society, we do not enjoy “constitutional rights.” We have long enjoyed “constitutionally protected Natural Rights.”

Beginning in 2008, when folks were trying to disqualify John McCain, born the son of American parentage stationed abroad in Panama on the service of our country with the U.S. Navy, some plucked a single sentence from the proper source of the Founders NBC term, The Law of Nations by Vattel, as if they believe that it was unnecessary for Vattel to take great care to write an entire chapter on the subject, when a single sentence says it all.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

As already demonstrated above, natives and naturals are in fact two different things, which confirms that the structure of this single sentence is not the definition of any one thing, but rather a general statement about more than one thing… Reference to “parents” does not mean both parents within the family unit, but rather all citizen family units which bear “citizen” children.

Why did these individuals not pluck any of the following single sentences from Vattel, appearing in the same paragraph Section 212 of Chapter XIX of the Law of Nations?

“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.”

Or this one – “as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Or this one – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

Or even this one – “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.”

When trying to sum up natural born Citizen using a single sentence from Vattel, any of the four sentences above would be accurate. So, why didn’t the people who cherry-picked the unrelated general sentence pluck any of these other single sentences from the same paragraph?

There are two reasons… first, the truth did not suit the political agenda, which was to disqualify John McCain on the basis that although he was born to a citizen father (and mother), he was born in Panama, not on U.S. soil – and second, because the progressive shifting definitions of marriage and family, along with gender roles lead many to believe that the original definition and Founders intent of the term are antiquated and outdated. It leads many to falsely think it is some offense to women’s rights…

The Citizenship Act of 1934 pertaining only to “naturalized citizenship” is the cornerstone of today’s effort to destroy the NBC term and thereby eliminate the requirement from Article II. FDR’s Naturalization Act was the result of an international treaty from a Pan American conference of December 26, 1933, essentially agreeing that there should be no distinction between the sexes as it related to nationality under legislative processes. Of course, this pertained only to “naturalized citizenship” under congressional naturalization legislation.

Still, it has since been improperly used to claim that citizenship and even natural born Citizenship can pass from either Father or Mother, as a matter of alleged gender equality. Yet, this claim pertains only to naturalized citizenship, which is mutually exclusive of natural born Citizenship.

As all governmental power in the United States is limited in nature and derived from the people, nothing beyond what which was ratified by the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under the consent of the people. The people have not consented to any alterations of Article II requirements for high office, so no alterations have been legally made.

Why natural born Citizen is non-negotiable

Much more than a political ambition or agenda is at stake here… The Natural Right of every child to inherit the condition of their birth family, specifically that of the Father (patriarch), the head of the family, is a constitutionally protected Natural Right.

Americans must understand that everything our Founders created was based upon inalienable Natural Rights, not man-made laws via legislative process or judicial review. When anyone begins to mess around with natural born, they are in fact messing around the Natural Law and all Natural Rights, the cornerstone of our Founders creation and any form of freedom and liberty.

If a child born to an American Father is stripped of their Natural Right to inherit the country of their Father, what other Natural Rights can be stripped from the child or the parent by mere man-made statute, court interpretation or Harvard Law Review? The answer is all of them…

In my personal opinion, the three most important words in all of the U.S. Constitution are natural born Citizen… because all Natural Rights flow through this patriarchal social concept and the sovereignty and security of our Constitutional Republic are protected from foreign invasion at the highest level by these three simple words, natural born Citizen.

Once any citizen of any type, by any means, including “undocumented citizens” can occupy the Oval Office, then any foreign entity can occupy that office, controlling the future of this nation and form of freedom and liberty itself as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force on earth.

Mere momentary political interest is not enough reason to let everything die…

I pray that Americans will cease to be so blind and foolish…. quickly!

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Repression on the Question of What is a “natural born Citizen?”

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio Delivers Blistering Speech on Obama’s Assault on Israel

/in , , , /by

Note how the excellent Rubio quotes the evil Palestinian Authority’s denial of Jewish history in its ancestral homeland and thus the Bible.

Rubio quotes several venomous and anti-Jewish tropes from the Islamo-Nazi Palestinian media, which is under the authority of the Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas. The systematic hatred inculcated among the Arab population, and especially the Palestinian children, against the Jewish state and the Jewish people by the PLO and the PA underlines Netanyahu’s justified comment that he made in his victory speech that a Palestinian state cannot be created at this time under such circumstances.

I personally abhor the very suggestion that an Arab terror state ever be created within the Land of Israel: Period. As I have written in numerous articles, the “Two State Solution is for Israel another Final Solution.”

Obama, however, willfully ignores all the anti-Jewish poison spewed relentlessly by the terrorists of the Palestinian  Authority – be they Fatah or Hamas – and totally ignores the Hamas Charter which calls for the destruction of Israel as well as the extermination of Jews worldwide.

Instead Obama now predictably displays his hatred of Israel by planning to use a resolution in the UN Security Council to force Israel back to the pre-1967 armistice lines that Abba Eban described as the “Auschwitz Borders.”

That would take Israel back to a suicidal nine to 15 mile wide border at its most populous region: a situation that invites and guarantees the destruction of the Jewish state by its Muslim and Arab enemies.

Auschwitz indeed!

The question must then be asked of Barack Hussein Obama. Is this what you want, Mr. President?

Alas, I think we know the answer!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu Speaks Plain Truth Two-state solution good in theory,but ‘you can’t impose peace’

A Complete Timeline of Obama’s Anti-Israel Hatred

Senator Rubio: FCC over-Regulation threatens the Internet with ‘speed limits’ and ‘speed traps’

/in , , , /by

Rubio: “Unlike the roads we drive on, the Internet is not a place where we need to start posting new speed limits and setting up new speed traps, but that’s essentially what this federal action threatens to do to the Internet.”

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement regarding today’s vote by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to increase government regulation of the Internet by reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications utility under Title II of the Communications Act:

“Over the past two decades, access to high speed Internet and the freedom to use it have transformed our economy and created infinite new ways for people to achieve the American Dream. Millions of people have thrived in the Internet era in no small part because overreaching government regulations and devious international schemes to seize control of it away from the U.S. have been rejected – until now.

“A federal government board in Washington today took action that threatens to overregulate the Internet to the point of making it more expensive for consumers, less innovative and less competitive. The Internet has thrived on innovation, speed and healthy competition to become faster and faster. Unlike the roads we drive on, the Internet is not a place where we need to start posting new speed limits and setting up new speed traps, but that’s essentially what this federal action threatens to do to the Internet.

“The Internet doesn’t need more rules and mandates that take power away from consumers and hand it to a federal government board that every lobbyist, lawyer and crony capitalist with a vested interest in the Internet will now seek to manipulate to their advantage. The Internet has worked so well so far precisely because it’s been as level a playing field as we have in any industry today, but now this decision threatens to give government regulators the power to pick winners and losers.

“I’m also concerned that this needless government intrusion into the Internet distracts from what we should be doing to reach the next frontier in the Internet’s history: to bring it within reach of the almost 100 million Americans who remain offline. Closing the digital divide is a goal we can achieve in the coming years, but only if we pursue policies like the Wi-Fi Innovation Act and the Wireless Innovation Act that I’ve introduced to increase the availability of spectrum in order to connect more people and increase capacity for growing amounts of data being exchanged via broadband.

“Instead of allowing a Washington bureaucratic board to have the final say, an action of this magnitude should be debated openly in Congress, where I’m confident it would be defeated. Consequential decisions like this about the Internet’s future should be made by Congress, not a federal board of unelected commissioners who are not accountable to a single American citizen. Congress should act immediately to begin updating outdated telecommunications laws.”

Rudy Giuliani and Marco Rubio on the dangers of Iran and Islam

/in , , , /by

Rudy Giuliani asks, “What is wrong with him [Obama]”? Rudy Giuliani on President Obama’s Policies on Islamism and Iran, Part 1 of 2 – Published on Feb 13, 2015. At times screaming with rage, Rudy Giuliani excoriates Barack Obama for his weak and feckless policies toward the global threats of radical Islam and a nuclear-armed Iran. This speech was delivered at the Iranian-American Community symposium “Countering Islamic Fundamentalism, and a Nuclear-Iran”:

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) states that we need to make sure that the term “Never Again!” is more than a mere slogan. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio – Senate Floor Speech – February 12, 2015:

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. ambassador to Denmark: Jihadi was “a Dane, born and bred in Denmark”

Islamic State: “Great reward” for killing Coptic Christians

Two More Jihadis Charged in Islamic Slaughter in Copenhagen Shooting

White House Refuses to Call 21 BEHEADING Victims Christians while Egypt launches airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Libya for savage beheading of Christians killed for their faith

Who is Natural Born, Who is Not?

/in , , , /by

Now that the Iowa Freedom Summit has officially kicked off the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, it’s time that, as a matter of party policy, Republicans agreed on who is a natural born citizen and who is not.  Three conservatives… Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)… are prominently mentioned as potential candidates.  But the question arises, are they eligible to serve?  And if not, are conservatives and Republicans willing to turn their backs on the U.S. Constitution, cloaking themselves in the specious argument that, if the Democrats could get away with it for eight years, why shouldn’t they?  In other words, are Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio supporters willing to make the case that two wrongs make a right… the Constitution be damned?

If Republicans wish to avoid embarrassment and a potential constitutional crisis midway through a presidential campaign, party leaders would be well-advised to resolve the question before the issue blows up in their collective faces.  By doing so, they can kill two birds with one stone: 1) they can prove to the American people that, unlike Democrats, Republicans still honor the words and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) they can permanently stain the Obama legacy by shining the light of day on his ineligibility… eight years too late, but better late than never.

Some Republicans may be foolish enough to think that Democrats, after nominating and electing  an ineligible candidate in 2008 and again in 2012, would hesitate to make a political issue out of the “natural born” status of Cruz, Jindal, or Rubio.  Those who make that assumption simply don’t know Democrats.  As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld remarked in his book, Rumsfeld’s Rules, “Never assume the other guy would never do something you would never do.”

When the Founders drafted Article II of the U.S. Constitution, they were highly concerned that the chief executive of the United States should not, under any circumstance, be even remotely subject to or encumbered by foreign influences.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, sent a letter to General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, expressing his concern over the prospect that an individual with some level of potential foreign allegiance, however remote, might be elected to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy.  He wrote: “Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (italics added).”

On March 12, 1788, in Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the widely held fear of foreign influence on the president of the United States.  He wrote, “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy (presidency) of the Union?

It should be noted that the Framers did not require the president and vice president to be devoid of all friends and acquaintances in foreign lands; they did not choose to limit the presidency and the vice presidency only to those without living relatives in foreign lands; nor did they limit the presidency and the vice presidency only to those without material offshore assets.  But they did produce language in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring that all candidates for president and vice president must be “natural BORN.”

Accordingly, the final product of the Constitutional Convention contained the following language, unchanged and unchallenged in the past 227 years.  Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution reads as follows: “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.”

As the Constitution was being drafted, southern Democrats demanded, as a means of increasing their representation in the U.S. Congress, a provision that allowed each slave to be counted as three-fifths of a person.  However, nearly a century later, the states ratified the 14th Amendment, a Republican-sponsored proposal granting full citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil.

While the amendment was designed to give full citizenship to emancipated slaves, the authors could not have foreseen an age in which international travel would be so commonplace that expectant foreign women could travel to the U.S. just to have their babies born on U.S. soil, creating a class of citizens known as “anchor babies.”  Had they been able to predict the future, they would likely have limited the amendment to full time legal residents of the United States, almost all of whom were emancipated slaves.

The 14th Amendment does not confer, nor was it ever intended to confer, “natural born” status on children of emancipated slaves or on today’s “anchor babies” because, like our first seven presidents… Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson… none of whom were “natural born” citizens, those infants were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth.  And while none of our first seven presidents were natural born, all were “citizens” on the day the Constitution was ratified and were “grandfathered” under the phrase, “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”    

Most Obama apologists, while insisting that Obama is a “natural born” citizen, even though he was born to an American mother and a Kenyan father, will agree that Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, is not a “natural born” citizen because he was born in Austria to Austrian parents and became a “naturalized” citizen after emigrating to the U.S.

When an alien seeks to become a naturalized citizen, he/she must demonstrate that they have been of good moral character for the statutory period prior to filing for naturalization.  Then,

upon being found suitable for U.S. citizenship, applicants must swear the following oath:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

As a “citizen of Kenya by birth,” under terms of the August 4, 2010 Kenyan constitution, Barack Obama has failed to renounce his Kenyan citizenship and is required to obey the laws of Kenya whenever he happens to visit that country.  Therefore, he has not “absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty…”  Nor has he shown himself to be a man of good moral character.

Any investigation into who is natural born and who is not, must have as its starting point, a realization that there are only two jobs in the entire United States, public sector or private sector, that require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those who are naturalized citizens or regular citizens can serve in state and local office, in state courts, in the U.S. Congress, and in the federal courts.  They are even eligible to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but they may not serve as president or vice president of the United States.

The Framers obviously intended the qualifications for president and vice president to be far and above the qualifications for any other office in the land.  As such, those who insist that the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are synonymous have an obligation to explain to the rest of us exactly what they see as the exclusivity factor that make eligibility requirements for president and vice president different from those of all other offices.

The acid test for those who claim natural born citizenship involves two factors, and two factors alone.  The first is “place” and the other is “parentage.”  Individuals born in a foreign land, to alien parents, can become “naturalized,” but never “natural born” citizens; “anchor babies” born to one or more non-citizen parents on U.S. soil can be “citizens,” but never “natural born” citizens; and those born anywhere on Earth to one American citizen and one who is not, can be American “citizens” with dual nationality, but never “natural born” citizens.

In January 2009 and again in January 2013, it was the obligation of congressional Republicans to question Barack Obama’s eligibility when they met in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College, but they lacked the courage to do so.  Nor did they have the courage or the political will to hold public hearings on the question.  Now they have the opportunity to shine the light of day on the question of Obama’s ineligibility by openly questioning the eligibility of three Republicans.  Such hearings will show that, in terms of eligibility for the highest office in the land, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are all “birds of a feather.”

Rubio Tears Into Charlie Crist Over His “Failed Leadership”

/in /by

Rubio always loves to rip into Crist over his political flip flops and “failed leadership”.

FL Senator Marco Rubio: 5 Steps to beat Ebola

/in , , , , /by

The United States is the country best equipped with the resources and power to tackle the medical and logistical nightmare that the Ebola epidemic has become. With over 8,000 people infected, more than 4,000 dead and infection rates increasing, this outbreak of Ebola is not going to go away quickly.

Yet while we need a more effective and rapid response to contain the outbreak in West Africa, we also need to make sure sufficient safeguards are in place to protect Americans. We have to make sure that every aspect of our federal government’s response — from our passenger screening efforts to our public health system — is effectively prepared to prevent the spread of Ebola.

To that end, the United States must take several steps to strengthen our response to this challenge.

First, Americans need to have some reassurance that someone in our country is in charge of confronting this epidemic and keeping Americans safe from it.

So far, inexcusably, this has not really happened. President Obama should publicly designate a senior government official to lead a task force. This person would be in charge of coordinating the U.S. response to this crisis, both domestically and internationally, including our military presence, which in a limited amount of time has already had a real impact on the ground in Liberia.

Second, we need to target the problem at the source. Containing the outbreak in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone is the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, but it’s also essential to protecting the American people.

The longer the outbreak lasts in those countries, the greater the chance of the disease being transmitted to other countries, including the United States. As part of the response abroad, we need to bolster public health systems in the region to help prevent the virus from expanding across more borders.

Third, we need to prevent the growing crisis in West Africa from leading to more cases in the United States.

The recent announcement of increased entry screening of those traveling from affected countries by Customs and Border Patrol at select points of entry in the United States is a good but, frankly, overdue first step. However, it will not be enough, and the State Department should institute a temporary ban on new visas to non-U.S. nationals seeking to travel to the United States from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

Since March 1, 2014, over 6,000 visas have been issued to nationals of these countries. Foreign health workers coming to the United States to be trained should be exempted, provided they pass screening efforts. However, until we have a better handle on the problem, we need to prevent mass travel from the countries most affected. We should also ensure that Customs and Border Patrol agents at airports beyond the current transit points have the equipment and training to deal with potential cases. And additional travel restrictions should not be ruled out.

Fourth, the infection of two health care workers in Dallas during the treatment of Duncan raises questions about the ability of hospitals across the country to handle the extensive safety protocols required to treat Ebola patients.

Two medical facilities in the United States have already successfully treated patients that have now been cured and two others have specialized facilities for treating patients with the virus. We should consider centralizing all future cases at these medical facilities, but hospitals across the United States will still need to focus on screening and isolating suspected cases that may arrive at their facilities.

Finally, we need to increase our efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine and to increase production of antiviral drugs.

There are a few promising drugs to fight Ebola in test phases. We should speed up testing of these drugs and explore the possibility of scaling up drug manufacturing at the same time as clinical testing. Once we develop a drug with proven success, we should be ready to supply it in large numbers. In order to avoid bureaucratic red tape, we should begin discussion with the WHO, drug companies and West African governments on the processes for purchasing and distributing of these drugs.

The Ebola epidemic is a reminder of the evolving nature of our national security challenges. A sick child in Africa has advanced into a global health security issue that is now knocking on America’s door.

We can successfully address this problem, protect our people and once again demonstrate America’s compassion abroad. But much more needs to be done and it needs to happen quickly. Like other national security challenges, the longer we wait to engage, the more limited our options will become and the likelihood of success will be reduced.

Read the entire article here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s Why Budget Cuts Have Nothing to Do With Developing an Ebola Vaccine

Whether There’s an Ebola Outbreak in the U.S. Depends on the Definition of ‘Outbreak’

A Second Health Care Worker Has Contracted Ebola

Ebola Cases, Already Rampant in West Africa, Expected to Double Every 3 Weeks

RELATED VIDEO: Plane that carried Ebola patient also flew to South Florida

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

EDITORS NOTE: Senator Marco Rubio is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Why is the pro-amnesty Florida Chamber of Commerce defending Julio Gonzalez?

/in , , , , /by

An email to supporters from the Julio Gonzalez campaign states, “Richard DeNapoli, candidate for District 74 State Representative, has been formally asked by the Florida Chamber Political Institute to discontinue the use of confidential information that he and his supporters have been using to attack Dr. Julio Gonzalez.”

So the Florida Chamber is angry that its information is being used against a candidate that it supports and endorses. It that a bad thing?

The Florida Chamber of Commerce website states:

The Florida Chamber of Commerce joined with our partners at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the American and Florida Farm Bureau Federations in urging Congress and the administration to work together to enact immigration reform during a Day of Action – an effort that included events in Washington, DC and in more than 60 congressional districts across 25 states.

The Florida Chamber supports a comprehensive, federal approach to immigration reform – one that serves our nation’s best interest and is crucial for Florida as we position ourselves to win the global race for talent and jobs.

Comprehensive federal immigration reform is code for “amnesty.”

The campaign website for Dr. Julio Gonzales states, “Julio’s conservative pro-growth policies have earned him the endorsement of the Florida Chamber of Commerce.” There is no mention of immigration in the issues section of the Gonzales campaign website. Gonzalez has been endorsed by both the pro-amnesty Florida Chamber and Senator Marco Rubio, who is the Republican face for amnesty. What does that tell you about Gonzalez?

In stark contrast, Richard DeNapoli has these positions on immigration posted on his campaign website:

  • No Amnesty – period,
  • E-verify for all employers to ensure the jobs magnet for illegal aliens is turned off,
  • Oppose all Obama efforts to house illegal immigrants in Sarasota County jails,
  • Demand Congress act to secure the border,
  • Support completion of the border fence,
  • Shift taxpayer funding from benefits for illegal aliens to helping keep our commitment to caring for our Veterans.

It is clear where DeNapoli stands on immigration. It is not clear where Gonzalez stands, except  that he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

The August 26th Republican primary is upon us. Voters need to understand where the candidates stand on important issues like immigration.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Florida: Since 2000 52% of jobs went to legal immigrants and illegal aliens
Hundreds of Convicted Criminals Among Illegal Immigrants Released by Obama Administration
Illegals hit jackpot with lenient U.S. judges…
DREAMers plan to occupy Cruz office…
PEW: More than 60% of Hondurans in USA Illegals…
CONFUSION: Obamacare Plans to End Without Proof of Citizenship…

Florida Senator Marco Rubio gives defining pro-family, pro-straight and pro-American speech

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has taken on social issues in a major speech given at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Senator Rubio is taking the high ground on issues that are important to the majority of Americans.

In “Strong Values for a Strong America” Rubio states, “A strong America is not possible without strong Americans – a people formed by the values necessary for success, the values of education and hard work, strong marriages and empowered parents. These are values that made us the greatest nation ever, and these are the values that will lead us to a future even better than our past.”

Rubio notes, “No one is born with the values crucial to the success sequence. They have to be taught to us and they have to be reinforced. Strong families are the primary and most effective teachers of these values. As the social philosopher Michael Novak once said, the family is the original and best department of health, education and welfare. It is crucial in developing the character of the young. And those efforts can be reinforced in our schools, religious institutions, civic groups and our society.”

Rubio comes out strong as the pro-family, pro-straight and pro-American candidate for President in 2016. Immediately after his speech Rubio was attacked for the following statement:

Now, I know that given the current cultural debates in our country, many expect that a speech on values would necessarily touch upon issues like same sex marriage and abortion. These are important issues and they relate to deeply held beliefs and deeply divisive ideas.

We should acknowledge that our history is marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians. There was once a time when the federal government not only banned the hiring of gay employees, it required private contractors to identify and fire them. Some laws prohibited gays from being served in bars and restaurants. And many cities carried out law enforcement efforts targeting gay Americans.

Fortunately, we have come a long way since then. But many committed gay and lesbian couples feel humiliated by the law’s failure to recognize their relationship as a marriage. And supporters of same sex marriage argue that laws banning same sex marriage are discrimination.

I respect their arguments. And I would concede that they pose a legitimate question for lawmakers and for society.

But there is another side of debate. Thousands of years of human history have shown that the ideal setting for children to grow up is with a mother and a father committed to one another, living together, and sharing the responsibility of raising their children. And since traditional marriage has such an extraordinary record of success at raising children into strong and successful adults, states in our country have long elevated this institution and set it apart in our laws.

That is the definition of marriage that I personally support – not because I seek to discriminate against people who love someone of the same sex, but because I believe that the union of one man and one woman is a special relationship that has proven to be of great benefit to our society, our nation and our people, and therefore deserves to be elevated in our laws.

Watch the YouTube video of Rubio’s speech:

Read the full text of Rubio’s speech here.

In Florida 1 million Christians either did not register or did not vote in the 2010 general election. Obama won Florida by less than 80,000 votes. Perhaps Rubio is on to something?

When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to at best religious intolerance and at its worst social suicide. Rubio has taken the moral high ground.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Straight White Guy’ Festival Outrages Same-Sex Marriage Supporters

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of  M.Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO.

Personal Liberty Digest Poll Results: Marco Rubio — Is Global Warming Fake?

/in , , , , , , /by
The total number of people who voted in this poll: 18,134
1) Do you think climate change (global warming) is real or a hoax?
 9%  voted:  Real. Climate change is real as is seen in the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet and in extreme changes in temperature and weather patterns.
 88%  voted:  Hoax. Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the green energy industry, there has been no real scientific proof.
 3%  voted:  I don’t know.
2) Do you believe human-caused greenhouse gases are to blame for extreme weather?
 4%  voted:  Yes, unregulated greenhouse gases caused by humans are causing global warming that is setting off an environmental chain reaction resulting in more extreme weather.
 95%  voted:  No, the climate is and has been historically cooling and warming throughout centuries and humans are not to blame.
 1%  voted:  I don’t know.
3) Do you, like Rubio, believe that global warming regulation and laws will do nothing but destroy the U.S. economy?
 95%  voted:  Yes, global warming laws will make everything more expensive as restrictions will change the way goods can be produced.
 4%  voted:  No, regulations and laws are absolutely necessary as we won’t have an economy if the environment is destroyed.
 1%  voted:  I don’t know.
4) Do you believe the United States should be the leader in solving the world’s climate issues?
 11%  voted:  Yes, the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world and needs to lead by example.
 85%  voted:  No, the U.S. needs to look out for its own economy and interests.
 4%  voted:  I don’t know.
5) With which political party do you most closely align philosophically?
 2%  voted:  Democrat
 33%  voted:  Republican
 8%  voted:  Libertarian
 34%  voted:  Tea Party
 21%  voted:  Independent
 3%  voted:  Other

Thank you for your participation.

If you haven’t voted click here.

Who is Carlos Lopez-Cantera the new Lieutenant Governor of Florida?

/in , , /by

Governor Rick Scott with Carlos Lopez-Cantera. Photo courtesy of The Shark Tank.

Many Floridians are scratching their heads about Governor Rick Scott’s selection of Carlos Lopez-Cantera as his running mate. Some see this as a pure political move to pander to Hispanics. Others are just wondering who is Lopez-Cantera, the now former Property Appraiser for Miami-Dade County turned Lieutenant Governor of the sunshine state.

Governor Scott released this biography of Lieutenant Governor Lopez-Cantera:

Carlos Lopez-Cantera was born in Madrid, Spain on December 29, 1973. He was born two months premature and was returned to his intended birthplace of Miami, Florida once he was healthy enough to travel. Lopez-Cantera graduated from Miami-Dade College and continued his studies at the University of Miami, where he graduated with a degree in Business Administration.

In August 2012, the citizens of Miami-Dade County elected Carlos Lopez-Cantera as the Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County. Carlos campaigned on a platform to make interaction with the office of the property appraiser easier, increasing community outreach and being more responsive to the needs of the residents of Miami-Dade.

From 2004 through 2012, Carlos served as a member of the Florida House of Representatives. Over the course of his 8-year term in the Legislature, Carlos served as a member of the Governor’s Property Tax Reform Committee, the My Safe Florida Home Advisory Council and the Miami-Dade County Mayor’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force. In the Florida House of Representatives, he chaired the Committee on Business Regulation and the Government Affairs Committee. Carlos served as Majority Whip from 2009 through 2010 and as the Majority Leader of the Florida House of Representatives during the final two years of his term from 2010 through 2012.

Carlos has been married to his wife Renee since 2005 and they have two young daughters.

Marc Caputo from the Miami Herald found something interesting when researching Lopez-Cantera. Caputo reports, “It’s easy to find home- and land-owner information on the website of Miami-Dade’s Property Appraiser, with a notable exception: the house where the county’s elected property appraiser lives. Details about Property Appraiser Carlos Lopez-Cantera’s home value and taxes are simply impossible to find with his website’s search engine. That makes him an exception in South Florida… The Miami Herald accidentally discovered the issue Monday while researching Lopez-Cantera amid word that Gov. Rick Scott plans to tap him Tuesday to fill the long-vacant post of lieutenant governor.”

“Even though Lopez-Cantera’s home information is nearly impossible to find, it doesn’t mean that he broke public-records laws, Parrish said, because the property appraiser’s website is offered as a courtesy to the public, not as a right mandated by Florida statute,” notes Caputo.

Caputo states in a Tampa Bay Tribune column, “Lopez-Cantera served under Rubio in the state House and served as majority leader through 2012, after which term limits forced him from office. He then ran for and won the relatively new elected position of Miami-Dade property appraiser… Lopez-Cantera has shown he can win in the county, is well-liked by conservatives throughout the state from his time leading the GOP in the state House, has helped lower property-tax values — thereby helping cut taxes —and has a scandal-free reputation in a county known for scandal.”

Lieutenant Governor Lopez-Cantera is the first American of  Hispanic descent to hold that office.

As this year progresses there will be more information coming to light about Lieutenant Governor Carlos Lopez-Cantera. Stay tuned.

PODCAST: How Mother Nature will Accelerate the Looming Fiscal Avalanche

/in , , /by

Many are writing about the looming fiscal cliff that Congress and the Obama administration will deal with upon return from the Thanksgiving break. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) warns of a looming fiscal avalanche.

In After Fiscal Cliff Comes Fiscal Avalanche, Rejection of U.S. Debt, Senator Lee writes, “While Washington is preoccupied with the so-called fiscal cliff, little attention has been given to the fiscal avalanche that will occur if we continue down an unsustainable, long-term path, causing markets to turn sour on U.S. debt and leading to a spike in interest rates.”

Senator Lee states, “The Congressional Budget Office projects that under the most likely policy scenario, in 30 years, net interest payments on the debt could total $3.8 trillion in today’s dollars. That is more than total government spending for 2011.”

Robert Wiedemer co-author of America’s Bubble Economy – Aftershock wrote America has suffered through a number of financial bubbles and the aftershock following each. To date each of these bubbles, the most recent being the housing bubble, have burst and fallen onto two other looming bubbles. These two bubbles are the “dollar bubble” and the “debt bubble”. Wiedemer predicts these two bubbles will burst when pricked by the pin called “inflation”.

The government fiscal policies which have lead the US to the fiscal avalanche may be helped along by mother nature.

Relying heavily on the research of experts globally, as well as his own original research that correctly predicted the change in the Sun’s behavior, Mr. John L. Casey has spelled out in his book Cold Sun a convincing case that a new cold era has arrived. In Cold Sun, Mr. Casey presents the evidence showing:

1. Global warming ended years ago.
2. The Sun has entered an ominous state of ‘hibernation.’
3. The Earth’s ocean and atmospheric temperatures are dropping rapidly and are now on a long term decline for the next thirty years.
4. Glacial ice worldwide is growing again and the threat of rising sea levels is over.
5. Why we should be preparing now for the coming cold and its ill-effects including record earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions as well as global agricultural devastation.

Mr. Casey’s predictions of mother nature taking her own course fly in the face of current government policies at the national, state and local levels. In this exclusive interview Mr. Casey explains how mother nature will have her way no matter what we try to do:

While government is focused on reducing CO2 emissions to prevent global warming, the earth is in fact cooling. According to Casey this cooling will shorten the growing season causing food prices to increase, require more fuel and energy to heat homes and businesses. The US will experience an increase in the number of natural disasters costing human life loss and property damage on a grand scale. The US ability to recover from such natural disasters here and globally will be restricted by our debt and cost to service that debt in the long term.

The world’s growing population depends on food. Brian M. Carney in his article for the Wall Street Journal asks, “Can The World Still Feed Itself?“. Mr. Carney interviews Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of Nestle’ the world’s largest food-production company. According to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, “Politicians do not understand that between the food market and the energy market, there is a close link.” That link is the calorie.

Carney reports, “The energy stored in a bushel of corn can fuel a car or feed a person. And increasingly, thanks to ethanol mandates and subsidies in the U.S. and bio-fuel incentives in Europe, crops formerly grown for food or livestock feed are being grown for fuel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent estimate predicts that this year, for the first time, American farmers will harvest more corn for ethanol than for feed. In Europe some 50% of the rapeseed crop is going into bio-fuel production, according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, while “world-wide about 18% of sugar is being used for bio-fuel today.”

What does this all mean?

If John Casey is correct in his predictions, and SSRC always is, then cold weather brings with it a shorter growing season and increased demand for fuel to keep people warm. Therefore, we must have policies that increase calories, not decrease the food supply.

These natural events will occur during the same 30 year period where our payments on the national debt will increase to $3.8 trillion.

RELATED COLUMN: Are we living in the Hunger Games?

FL Rep. Buchanan Opposes Military Attack on Syria

/in , /by

U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, (R-FL District 16), member of the House Ways and Means Committee

U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, (R-FL District 16), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said today he opposes launching a military strike against Syria because there is no vital national security interest at stake. Funding for military action against Syria would require support from Buchanan’s committee.

“With no direct threat to the United States and no discernible military objective, I cannot support committing American military might to a civil war in the Middle East where the lines are blurred between friend and foe,” Buchanan said.

The Florida Congressman noted that more than 95 percent of the phone calls and emails to his office from constituents have been against American intervention. “The case has not been made for why U.S. involvement is vital to our national security.”

Buchanan also expressed concern that a “limited” military strike could weaken U.S. credibility in the world and further destabilize the Middle East.

“The last thing we want to do is incite further chaos in a part of the world that is already unstable,” he said.

Buchanan said he would continue to listen to his constituents and attend a classified briefing prior to next week’s vote in Congress on whether to authorize the use of military force against Syria.

US Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL District 17), US Army Iraq War veteran.

Jeremy Wallace from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports, “Buchanan said it’s clear the people he represent have a similar view. He said as of Wednesday he had received 600 calls and emails in opposition to the U.S. striking Syria. Just nine people said we should get involved he said … The region’s other House member, Rep. Tom Rooney [R-FL District 17], who represents Charlotte County and part of Manatee, has also been opposed to U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict. Rooney said he worries that if the U.S. strikes, Syrian president Bashar Assad will respond by attacking Israel, which would likely result in a more forceful action from the United States.”

“The views of the regions two House members is vastly different than the two Senators from Florida. U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio, a Republican, and Bill Nelson, a Democrat, both have declared their willingness to strike Syria and try to oust Assad from office,” notes Wallace.

NOTE: Since Wallace wrote his column Senator Marco Rubio voted against military action SH 216 in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In a press release after the vote to authorize force Senator Rubio stated:

“What is happening in Syria is a vital national security concern for the United States. I know Syria is far way, and some may wonder why it matters. But it matters for several reasons…

“First, Syria is of vital importance to Iran and to their ambitions to become the foremost power in the region. They use Syria to arm Hezbollah and then to attack Israel. They use it to traffic weapons and terrorists to destabilize Iraq. Second, Assad is a dangerous anti-American dictator. For example, he helped terrorists get into Iraq so they could maim and kill American soldiers. Third, this prolonged conflict is creating vast ungoverned spaces in Syria which are turning into the premier operational area in the world for jihadists to operate. And fourth, if Assad does not face consequences for what he has done, and is doing, it sends a message to other rogue governments like North Korea and Iran that they too can cross red lines without fear.

“However, while I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict. And I still don’t. I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work. The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power. The strike the administration wants us to approve I do not believe furthers that goal. And in fact, I believe U.S. military action of the type contemplated here might prove to be counterproductive.”

RELATED VIDEO: Rubio: My Vote Against Military Action in Syria (SH 216):

RELATED: US funded Syrian rebels merge with al Qaeda (video)

FL citizen challenges Rubio to face his constituents – will he show up?

/in , , , , /by

Sally Baptiste from Orlando, FL has challenged Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) to face his constituents on S-744. The Senate is going on summer recess and Rubio will return to Florida the entire month of August. The question is does the Senator have the courage to stand in front of his Florida constituents? Up till now Rubio has only faced a friendly media and his fellow “Gang of Eight” Senators.

The I-4 corridor is considered key to any Presidential or statewide election. Speculation on a Rubio run for the White House in 2016 or a run for reelection in 2016 abounds. Rubio has an office in Orlando.

The Villages located in Sumter County is one of the largest retirement communities in Florida and is located just North of Orlando. The Villages TEA Party is headquartered there. Presidents and Presidential candidates come to The Villages to garner support. So did Rubio during his campaign in 2010. The Villages TEA Party helped him get elected in 2010 and now has misgivings about him because of his stand on immigration. You can bet they will show up at any Orlando town hall on immigration with Rubio in attendance.

Baptiste states in a letter to Rubio, “It is time for you to ‘face the music’ in Orlando. It is time you demonstrated some courage and have a ‘Come to Jesus’ with your American Constituents in Orlando, FL on the S-744 Amnesty Bill.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in a 2010 study estimated it costs Florida’s taxpayer $5 billion annually to incarcerate, medicate and educate illegal aliens.

“I have a copy of the documentary ‘They Come to America II – The Cost of Amnesty‘ to give to you for viewing at an Orlando Town Hall Meeting. You and your Constituents (including me) need to watch this documentary together.  Please invite the ‘Gang of 8/10’ to join us,” Baptiste writes.

J.R. Sanchez, Legislative Assistant; Director of Outreach, Office of Marco Rubio, acknowledged the email and sent this reply to Baptiste, “Thank you for your e-mail. Have a pleasant evening. J.R.”

Below is the full text of Baptiste’s letter to Rubio:

July 17, 2013

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 350
Orlando, FL 32801

Senator Marco Rubio,

It is time for you to “face the music” in Orlando. It is time you demonstrated some courage and have a “Come to Jesus” with your American Constituents in Orlando, FL on the S-744 Amnesty Bill.

I have a copy of the documentary “They Come to America II – The Cost of Amnesty” to give to you for viewing at an Orlando Town Hall Meeting.  You and your Constituents (including me) need to watch this documentary together.  Please invite the “Gang of 8/10” to join us.  We need to face the facts about the total failure of OUR government to secure OUR southern border and OUR homeland.  Facts you seem to be totally ignorant of or you are being intentionally deceptive (aka lying) about.  How much do you really know about securing the American homeland?  How much do you really care about securing our borders?  How much do you really care about protecting American sovereignty?  The fact is….I cannot trust you to protect Americans or American sovereignty.

After the viewing of the documentary “They Come to America II – The Cost of Amnesty”, you can address your American constituents in person, you can look into the eyes of your American constituents and explain why securing our borders is no big deal to you.  You can explain why it is okay to openly invite terrorists to enter OUR country.  You can explain why it is a good thing to legalize and empower terrorists whose only goal is to destroy America.  You can also be ready to accept responsibility for the next terrorist attack that KILLS AMERICANS on AMERICAN SOIL.  You really need to think about that.

This Town Hall Meeting will allow you to demonstrate your courage and explain to AMERICANS face to face why you willingly sacrifice the American people for the illegal alien terrorists and illegal alien workers.  You can explain why you willingly risk our national security and the welfare of the American people. You can be a man and prove that you have the courage to face the American people after this extreme betrayal that some would say amount to a treasonous act against Americans and American sovereignty.

Then you can also explain face to face why as a candidate for the U.S. Senate – Florida; you continually stated you would never support amnesty.  I personally knew not to believe your campaign propaganda/rhetoric because I knew that as the Speaker of the Florida House, you repeatedly blocked bills that would have helped to control illegal immigration.  Truth be told, you have always supported Amnesty and well, to put it in simple terms…. you were the perfect GOP “Latino” amnesty puppet for the U.S. Senate.  For the record….I personally have no doubt if the U.S House GOP passes any form of S-744 Amnesty, that will be the end of the GOP and it should be.  The GOP has lost its way and needs to be abolished.

One more thing….I watched you speaking on the Senate floor when you used God and Christianity to try to guilt people into supporting your S-744 Amnesty Bill.  How disgusting is  that?  Mr. Rubio, if you really are a Christian, if you really are a God fearing individual, then you will do the right thing and have a Town Hall Meeting in Orlando and face your American Constituents.  You will join with the American people and watch the truth about national security and amnesty.  That is the right thing for you to do.

Please let me know the date and time of your Town Hall Meeting and I will be bring a copy of Dennis Michael Lynch’s documentary “They Come to America II – The Cost of Amnesty”.

May God Bless America.  May God protect Americans from the unethical and evil actions of those elected and sworn to serve and protect the American people.  The American people need God’s protection more now than ever before.

Thank you,

Sally Baptiste
Orlando, FL 32822

Has Rubio read his own immigration bill?

/in , , , /by

The Weekly Standard reports that at least five S. 744 supporters do not know what is in the bill. When asked about a provision that would give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire amnestied aliens over citizens and permanent legal residents:

Sen. Baucus said: “I don’t know if that’s been solved.”

Sen. Casey: “I just haven’t read it that closely to know.”

Sen. Blumenthal: “that’s a good question. I’d have to check.”

Sen. Carper: “I don’t have the time to drill down on it right now”

Sen. Boxer: “I think if you work for an employer who offers health care, you will get the health care you want.”

Sen. McCain’s and Rubio’s offices didn’t respond.

John Carney of CNBC writes that the Congressional Budget Office says S. 744 would create “another decade of pain” for American workers. But that doesn’t seem to trouble very many Members of the United States Senate.

Instead of discussing the higher unemployment and lower wages S. 744 would mean for American workers, the Gang is “in full horse-trading mode” according to Politico, which also reports (subscribers only) that the entire process has been “mostly via back channels and insider negotiations, with deals reached privately to lock up senators’ votes — rather than amendments adopted publicly on the Senate floor.”

Erick Erickson of Red State has a list of quotes from amnesty supporters back when they were running for office — and againstamnesty.

And Sen. Rubio (among those quoted by Erickson above) reiterated his belief that the Senate needs to convince the American public to trust it on immigration.

Sen. Paul, on the other hand, wrote “Washington parlor tricks disguised as reform will not fool the American people.”

VIDEO: Sen. Ted Cruz Speaks Against Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Immigration Bill: