RUBIO IS NOT ELIGIBLE AND GOWDY KNOWS IT.

The Marshall Report

rubio untitledpppp

Gowdy is now declaring that Marco who was born in 1971 to Cuban nationals that did not become citizens of the US until 1975 qualifies little anchor baby Rubio to meet the qualifications of presidential citizenship.

This is absurd and a total shredding of the constitutional requirements.

They were not citizens.  If Marco’s father  or mother would have committed a crime and been arrested, let’s say in 1973…he or she would have been deported back to Cuba for he was not a US citizen, nor under US jurisdiction.  ICE would have deported either one back to Cuba for prosecution.  So how in the world does this meet constitutional requirements at the time he was born?  It does not.

Enough said.  This is just one more slap in the face of the informed American.

To read more about the naturalization of citizens and requirements for presidency click this link: http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/12/trey-gowdy-twists-natural-born-citizen-qualification-to-support-marco-rubio/

This issue has been hashed and hashed and no one is conforming to the actual law here. Are we going to resolve to an anything goes mentality? A lopsided lawlessness that can pick and choose who abides and who does not?  Both Rubio and Cruz are not eligible.  That is the law of the constitution.

Dianne Marshall

63 thoughts on “RUBIO IS NOT ELIGIBLE AND GOWDY KNOWS IT.”

  1. If ever there was a litmus test for the “media”! Allowing for the bias, “media” SHOULD in its’ “anti-republican[t]) dogma, jump ALL OVER a story like macro rubio’s “birther issues”. If they don’t, it tells me that they are involved in yet again corrupting an election. But this time it would favor a “republican(t)”? Mr. Trump is decimating their designs by sheer presence! I can’t wait until he really starts to TRY!!! TRUMP 2016! HE’S NOT FOR SALE!!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. jonmcvey says:

      yes he is, always has been. hes a business man, everything is always for sale at the right price. this slogan is so ignorant its insulting. you cant possibly believe it, you just like being told what you want to hear . your being lied to, you know it, you celebrate it, and you ask for more.

      Like

      Reply

    1. As us citizens in the military, my first son was born in Germany. You’re telling me he’s not a US citizen because I happened to be in a foreign country during his birth? Cruz’s parents were US citizens. It doesn’t matter that he was born in Canada.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Cruz’s mother had become a Canadian and her husband too became Canadian citizens. His birth certificate is Canadian birth certificate. Ted has not produced any papers showing that his mother went to the US Consulate in Canada to fill out the forms declaring Ted as a US citizen. Therefore at the time, he was born in Canada to Canadian parents and received a Canadian birth certificate. His mother and father did not become US citizens again until 2005. Ted would have to show his dual citizenship papers.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. roooth says:

        John McCain was born in Panama. He is not Panamanian. He’s a natural born American, born to American parents on active military duty overseas.
        If your son was born in an American military hospital, you were technically on American soil.
        No matter, your son is eligible to be President.

        Like

      4. No Wanda your son is a US citizen because he was born of the blood by two US citizens. The point here is that the Cuban parents were not naturalized citizens of the US.

        Like

      5. streetjust says:

        The issue is less where he was born and more who he was born to. He wasn’t born to US citizens so he can’t be a “natural born citizen”, However, he was born in the U.S. so he is a citizen according to the screwed up interpretation of the “slavery amendments”. Vattel’s The Law of Nations explains this, but during translation from French to English it got screwed up between natives and naturals so you have to look at the French version to get the true meaning.

        Like

      6. Charles Slakan says:

        Cruz admitted himself his Communist Castro supporting father was a terrorist who threw MOLOTOV Cocktails at supporters of Babtista, who by the way the U.S. supported.
        Had Cruz’es father been an Arab, certainly we would still be hearing Terrorist.
        That’s exactly what CRUZ’ES FATHER WAS a terrorist.
        Cruz admits his father’s supporters then bribed Cuban
        officials in order to emigrate here.
        Was being an American real important to this Castro supporting communist molotov throwing terrorist?
        No, it wasn’t first The terrorist got a citizenship in Canada
        then Years later, Sen. Cruz was born a Canadian Citizen and stayed one for close to 40 years.
        The Senator’s terrorist father, just like Rubio’s foreign parents didn’t value American citizenship too much.
        It took both those Senators’ foreign born folks almost 18 years to WANT AN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
        Now Cruz is certainly not responsible for his terrorist father having thrown molotov cocktails at Cubans our government SUPPORTED but there are even more important issues.
        If our Founders did in fact, intend foreign born children of American citizens or children born of foreigners with allegiance to another nation until they are actually naturalized to be eligible for the presidency as Natural born citizens and then, in the case of Rubio to be American Citizens at birth much less Eligible for even the Senate
        Why when the Constitution was ratified and even before that were Tories deprived of their property, businesses, harrassed and treated as enemies and or foreigners even if they did not fight for the English but only did not recognize any sovereignty but the King of England?
        We are discussing colonists who were often brothers, sons, fathers of the Americans made citizens by virtue of their allegiance not to The King but to the democratic processes put forth and defined as The Sovereignty of the United States of America?
        The same people born in Georgia, Virginia, Massachussetts or any of the other 13 states which comprised our newly formed nation
        Yes, the same land but as with the royalist or tories who did not support the very liberal ideas of owing their allegiance to a newly formed nation without a king based on liberal ideas that were try revolutionary.
        There are documents after documents that exist detailing the injustices these Tories passed by our founders as deserving citizenship and the founders who believed even though they were not Americans, they deserved certain rights necessary in order for trading and business to thrive and continue.
        If in fact those born on the same soil as George Washington did not inherit imaginary rights of U.S. citizenship , nor were required to be naturalized.
        Does it make sense a Canadian born son of a terrorist and American woman would not be natural born and a son of foreigners born in the US could be no different than the Tories?

        Like

    2. You are wrong. Even though he was born in Canada, his mom’s American citizenship covered him the second he was born. She met all of the requirements needed to pass on her citizenship to her son. He did not have to do anything to be recognized as an American citizen. So the only fraud here is yours. Go Cruz!!

      Like

      Reply
      1. don says:

        but not his dad. BOTH parents must be US Citizens at the time of birth.
        Even Obama’s certificate has his father as a Keyan.
        BOTH Freakin parents have to be US citizens!!!

        Liked by 1 person

      4. roooth says:

        Nope, she was a Canadian.

        Doesn’t matter, Cruz claimed his Canadian birthright citizenship well into his adult years.

        He applied to become naturalized, and he was – which eliminates the possibility that he already was a natural born American.

        Probably why he won’t show any of his immigration paperwork, or his mother’s citizenship papers.

        Like

      6. Cruz had the government shut down, and when he did that my wife’s cousin had to be buried without military honors that he deserved. His brother had to pay for everything and all of the relatives did not get to see him buried with honors! Cruz does not care about Texans or anybody else but himself! Cruz is wrong for Texas and America!

        Liked by 1 person

    4. Angie says:

      Trump? Ick. A man who can’t run his own life and can’t figure out that diplomacy is not only necessary for diplomats but plain ole decent people? Um, no.

      Like

      Reply
    5. Chris says:

      While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15×

      15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.

      Show More
      Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.16×

      16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].

      Show More
      Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth.17×

      17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).

      Show More
      Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”18×

      18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
      And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964,19×

      19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].

      Show More
      and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.20×

      20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.

      Show More

      Like

      Reply
      1. streetjust says:

        People keep confusing naturalization with “natural born”. Naturalization is what happens to immigrants as defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790. “Natural born” is what happens to people born to citizen parents. These terms are NOT interchangeable. To make things less confusing think of “natural born” as an inherited right passed from the parents to the child. Obviously, parents not citizens can’t pass along “natural born citizenship” even if the child becomes a citizen by birth in the U.S. Refer to Vittal’s The Law of Nations, French version.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. surlycurmudgen says:

      NATURAL BORN’ CITIZEN, DEFINED
      The internationally recognized definition of Natural Born Citizen is found in a reference book, “Law of Nations” by Emerich de Vattel,
      1 frequently used by the Founders in their own legal writings as well as the crafting of the Constitution.
      2 This is the source of the term ‘natural born citizen’ that they understood and included in the US Constitution:

      “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations – English version.

      Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents –
      Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
      Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
      Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
      Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
      United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
      Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

      The supreme court has defined it succinctly five times and cited that definition over twenty five times. Trying to say the definition is uncertain is 240 years too late as that horse left the barn some thirty times since then.

      Like

      Reply

  6. I’ve been sharing your articles because they are awesome and just to let you know that facebook now will not let me it’s saying they are infected with malware I do not believe it because I ran a scan on my computer last night for malware and spy ware and my computer is fine.. but it’s saying that this articles are infected with malware can you help me because I love sharing these to my face book page…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. This is what it tells me when I try to share your article.. Really up sets me because I love sharing these. I will past now. Sorry, this action isn’t available right now

    As a security precaution you can’t take this action because your computer may be infected with a virus or a malicious browser extension.

    You can learn more about malicious software here
    If you think you’re seeing this by mistake, please let us know.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  8. Lilly Cooper says:

    Hi

    I have been reading and sharing most of your wonderful articals on my face book page as of today face book will not let me it keeps saying that they are infected with Malware, can some one there help me because I love reading these and so do my friends.. I will past the message face book keeps giving me when I try and share them.. Also I ran scan for malware on my computer and spy ware so I know it’s not infected.

    Thank you Lilly

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  9. Dianne Marshall:

    Although I personally disagree with the fact that anchor babies can obtain American citizenship, that is a problem that can only be solved by a change to the Constitution of the United States. However, neither Rubio, nor Cruz, nor Jindal were anchor babies, and you are absolutely incorrect as to the Presidential eligibility of Rubio and Cruz, and of Bobby Jindal.

    Here’s why:

    The United States of America recognizes two types of citizen, and two only, Citizen by Birth, and Naturalized Citizen. We do not have a third class, called “Natural Born Citizen.” A Citizen at Birth is a Natural Born Citizen.

    I should point out that the Birthers also claim that both Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are ineligible to the Presidency, but that assertion is totally false, as the case of US vs. Wong Kim Ark makes clear. Ironically, the Birthers claim to set great stock in the case of Wong Kim Ark, despite the fact that it destroys their arguments as to Jindal and Rubio.

    Our Founders were concerned that some foreigner, particularly some member of the European Aristocracy might immigrate to our new nation, become a citizen, then become President, resulting in a Commander-in-Chief of our military having foreign loyalties. Accordingly, they accepted John Jay’s suggestion, and limited Presidential eligibility to natural born citizens.

    But, the Founders did not define natural born citizen in the Constitution, nor anywhere else in our founding documents, nor in our law. Why would they not do so? Most likely, because they thought everyone else would have the same understanding of that term that they did. At the time our Constitution was written, anyone born to British parents in the colonies, was a natural born British subject. That’s because the English Law provided that the children of British subjects, born abroad, are natural born subjects. The case of Wong Kim Ark, which the Birthers put such stock in, explains this quite well, and the Court stated that:

    “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words (natural born citizen), either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”

    And, under the British Common Law, as I’ve previously stated, a child of British subjects, born abroad (outside of England) was a natural born British subject. And, the Surpreme Court goes on to say, again in Wong Kim Ark:

    “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS NECESSARILY INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT ITS PROVISIONS ARE FRAMED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW, AND ARE TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY.”

    AND 

    “Natural-born British subject” means a British SUBJECT WHO HAS BECOME A BRITISH SUBJECT AT THE MOMENT OF HIS BIRTH.” Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”

    AND 

    “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”

    AND 

    “Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . THE TERM ‘CITIZEN’ AS UNDERSTOOD IN OUR LAW, IS PRECISELY ANALAGOUS TO THE TERM ‘SUBJECT’ IN THE COMMON LAW, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    The Birthers will scream and shout that citizen and subject are two entirely different things, but as you can see from reading the Wong Kim Ark case, that’s a lie. The Supreme Court of the United States declares that the terms, “citizen” and “subject” are analogous.

    By virtue of his mother’s American citizenship, Ted Cruz became an American citizen at the moment of his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized, for that reason, and he was issued a United States Passport, when he was in high school. Ted Cruz is a citizen by birth, by virtue of being born, or a natural born citizen. And, he is certainly eligible to serve as President of the United States.

    Like

    Reply
    1. surlycurmudgen says:

      NATURAL BORN’ CITIZEN, DEFINED
      The internationally recognized definition of Natural Born Citizen is found in a reference book, “Law of Nations” by Emerich de Vattel,
      1 frequently used by the Founders in their own legal writings as well as the crafting of the Constitution.
      2 This is the source of the term ‘natural born citizen’ that they understood and included in the US Constitution:

      “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations – English version.

      Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents –
      Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
      Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
      Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
      Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
      United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
      Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

      The supreme court has defined it succinctly five times and cited that definition over twenty five times. Trying to say the definition is uncertain is 240 years too late as that horse left the barn some thirty times since then.

      Like

      Reply

  10. Cruz is eligible to be president. His mom was an American citizen when he was born, so just like any other baby born in America or abroad to an American mother is an American AT BIRTH! His mom met all of the requirements to pass on her citizenship to him.

    Like

    Reply
  12. Angie says:

    Rubio was born in Florida. Florida is a state. Rubio is, therefore, a US citizen. Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother. Cruz, therefore, is a US citizen. Learn what constitutes a citizen before spreading this stuff about candidates (or even current president’s…).

    Like

    Reply
    1. surlycurmudgen says:

      That article is a ludicrous absurdity. It is full of holes half truths and many out right lies. Even worse one of the authors teaches constitutional law at Columbia and the other was an assistant attorney general. They then gilded their folly by having it published in the Harvard law revue. The two authors, all their law professors and the editors of the Harvard law revue should all be stripped of their credentials and any license to practice law.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  14. Rubio is a Traitor to Our Constitution!

    Rubio no longer has ANY credibility on ANY matter!

    Rubio is Not a “natural born citizen” and like 0bama he wants to Usurp the position of POTUS!

    Rubio can Not be a conservative as Our Constitution is conservative. Treachery to Our Constitution is Not conservative, it is repulsive!

    Truth Matters! Our Constitution Matters!

    “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;” – Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of Our Constitution
    ——-
    There is No wiggle room or gray area here:

    Rubio was born on May 28, 1971 in Miami, Florida

    Rubio’s father did not become a US citizen until 1975, so it is completely impossible for Rubio to be a “natural born citizen”.

    This issue is Not complicated at all and very easy to understand. Our Framers understood the meaning of “natural born citizen” as clearly as we understand the meaning of pizza.

    “The only definition of “natural born citizen” that matters is the one held by the Founding Fathers!” – Leo C. Donofrio

    Our Framers used the law of Nations in DEFINING “natural born citizen”.

    Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212, is this:

    § 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. Bob says:

      You’ve overlooked the 14th Amendment, which says “All per­sons born or nat­ur­al­ized in the United States, and sub­ject to the jur­is­dic­tion there­of, are cit­izens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Doesn’t matter if his parents were citizens.

      Like

      Reply
    1. surlycurmudgen says:

      In reality no, Obama , not being qualified for the office, is not the president despite taking the oath. The United States has been without a president for the past seven years.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  18. Bob says:

    Everyone is forgetting the 14th Amend­ment, which states: “All per­sons born or nat­ur­al­ized in the United States, and sub­ject to the jur­is­dic­tion there­of, are cit­izens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Being born in Miami, that’s about as “natural born” as a person can get. This is not a debateable issue. I’m voting for Bernie Sanders, though, so I find all of this pretty funny.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  19. I can see you guys flunked eighth grade civics. He was born on American soil. He’s a citizen. The constitution doesn’t care whether mom and dad were citizens, if he’s born here, he’s ours. I don’t even like the guy, but the stupid burns in here

    Like

    Reply
    1. surlycurmudgen says:

      You are right the stupid does burn in here, you are a shinning example. To serve as president of the united States in addition to being a citizen your parents must have been US citizens when you were born and you must have been born on US soil.

      Like

      Reply
  21. jazkeys says:

    ALL of the current crop of Repuglicants are utterly worthless, paranoid, misogynous, intolerant, homophobic, superstitious, xenophobic, lying, hypocritical, bigoted troglodytes with absolutely nothing of value to offer our country or our species. Few people are more self-loathing than those who support these knuckle-draggers, and women who support those eager to strip them of the rights for which their grandmothers fought and won are the most self-loathing of all.

    We owe it to the future of our country to kick these despicable parasites to the curb with all of life’s other wholly useless trash. End of story.

    Like

    Reply

  23. I think Cruz is eligible on paper*; his mother is/was an American citizen, but living in Canada with her Cuban-born husband at the time Li’l Teddy was born. Because his mother’s American, Teddy is as well.
    *he’s hardly “eligible” from a political standpoint…

    Like

    Reply
  27. Alfredo Lopez says:

    Charles Slaken you need a history lesson. Many Americans fought side by side with Fidel Castro against Bautista. About the only group that didn’t want Castro was the mob and the CIA. The worst thing to happen is Castro turned out to be as bad as the guy he replaced.

    Like

    Reply
  29. Zeebee says:

    Rubio was born on U.S. Soil to parents who were in the United States legally. That would make him a natural born citizen. This is based on the phrase found in the Constitution – that meets the definition of the phrase at the time the Constitution was written as that term was taken from the Common Law that existed at the time. Moreover, this has been ruled on by multiple courts since the time of the adoption of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court – finding that people born on U.S. soil to parents legally on U.S. soil are indeed natural born citizens. Even a cursory attempt to research this issue would have revealed the truth of what I just stated. Your comments to the contrary are complete, utter falsehoods.

    Like

    Reply

  30. I’m curious to find out what blog platform you are working with? I’m having some minor security problems with my latest site and I would like to find something more safeguarded. Do you have any recommendations?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment