Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112661)	9/11/2011 8:19:26 PM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224748

kenny, While you are pondering clinton lies ponder this as well. :-) Marco Rubio and eligibility September 09, 2011 By Robert Klein Engler wnd.com Sen. Marco Rubio's star is rising in the Republican Party. There is talk he may be on the ticket as a candidate for vice president once the party picks its candidate for president. If it's up to the birthers and the Country Club Republicans, Rubio's place on the ticket may not materialize. For years, the birthers have been treated with disdain by the left and mainstream media. Part of this disdain is generated by fringe elements in the birther community. If the media can overlook these fringe elements, they will see that many birthers are loyal Americans who simply want the U.S. Constitution to be respected. In short, the birther argument against Obama and possibly Sen. Rubio is a constitutional argument. There are many in the birther camp who argue that when the U.S. Constitution says being a "natural born citizen" (Article II, Section 1) is one qualification to be president and vice president, it means that both parents of the candidate must have been U.S. citizens when the candidate for president was born. They argue that to be a natural born citizen of the United States requires not only birth on U.S. soil but two parents as U.S. citizens as well. This argument is not spelled out in the Constitution but is an interpretation of the unique phrase "natural born citizen." Nevertheless, there are valid and strong arguments in favor of the two-parent position. Writing in WND, Drew Zahn sums up these arguments. At the end of his summation, Zahn adds, "The U.S. Supreme Court, for its part, has admitted the Constitution does not define what is meant by 'natural born citizen' and hasn't offered a ruling to solve the dispute." The very fact that the high court has not defined what "natural born citizen" means is why Marco Rubio will not be a candidate for vice president. Nobody wants to raise this issue in court, let alone Republicans or Democrats. In spite of the ambiguity in the Constitution about the term natural born citizen, there are pundits like Chet Arthur who argue that an interpretation of the 14th Amendment is sufficient to have Sen. Rubio on the ticket. If Rubio runs, Arthur's interpretation of the 14th Amendment will be challenged. The birthers and some tea-party members will see to that. Thoroughly researched for three years, the book that made Obama blink on birth certificate: Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President" If a citizenship challenge is brought to court, then both political parties will be in a bind. To raise the issue of Rubio's natural born citizenship status is to also raise again the same issue in regard to Obama. Clearly, if Rubio is not a natural born citizen, but just a citizen by birth, because his two parents were not U.S. citizens, so also is Obama not a natural born citizen – and his presidency is null and void. Who in either party wants a campaign discussion of that issue? So far, no one has asked Rubio in public if he considers himself to be a natural born citizen. It is doubtful if anyone in the mainstream media will ask that question. What can Rubio answer if he is asked? A "yes" will force a discussion of the issue and may even get members of the tea party and birthers agitated enough to bring the issue to court. If he answers "no," he is claiming that the Obama presidency is null and void. That is an issue the Country Club Republicans would prefer to avoid, as they have been avoiding all along. Sen. Rubio could raise the issue of natural born citizenship himself as a patriotic gesture, but that would not sit well with the Country Club Republicans. They know with Rubio on the ticket they have a good chance of winning the White House, but gnawing at the back of their minds is the unseemliness of questioning the eligibility of Obama, our first black president. Likewise, the mainstream media will not ask the citizenship question. They have managed a campaign of silence on this issue to protect Obama and will do nothing in the coming election to raise their voice about it. The Internet and blogs may raise the citizenship issue, but if Rubio is not on the ticket they don't have to. As attractive as Sen. Rubio is as a candidate and as important as Florida is with its electoral votes, the Republican Party movers and shakers will compromise on another candidate. Rubio may speak at the Republican Convention, but the bet is he will not run for national office. The best bet is that Marco Rubio will not be a candidate and will remain in the U.S. Senate. The Country Club Republicans will make him an offer he cannot refuse. The best bet is that silence and politics as usual will prevail. The issue of natural born citizenship will be kept in the background during this coming election cycle. To do otherwise is to call the game into question. No Washington politician wants to risk that.