Saturday, June 23, 2012

I Will Write In Palin If Rubio Is VP


I will not vote for Marco Rubio as Vice President if Mitt Romney selects him to run on his ticket.  He is NOT constitutionally eligible to be President or Vice President, and I would be a damn hypocrite in holding my ire and giving him my vote after working as hard as possible to educate people on Barack Obama’s ineligibility.

Call me a Birther, call me a Tea Party hick, call me an “extremist” or racist, I could give a flying forgery.  I just don’t care anymore.  I’m not going to be like one of those liberals who complain about the rich not paying more taxes and not voluntarily putting their money where their mouth is.  And conservatives have constantly compromised on principle to the point where most Americans don’t think there is much difference in the spending habits of either party. 

If you consider yourself a conservative – let me advise you that you can’t buy back your integrity when it’s convenient.  The video of the Middle School kids cursing the elderly lady on the bus in New York would never have happened if we, as a society, doled out a little more public shame and disgust rather than pretending we just “don’t judge.”  Conservatism is, and should be, demonstrating character, even when it’s not convenient just as the people who bought us liberty did with their blood.  You can’t change Hollywood or the media by yourself, but you damn sure can give an example to your kids, friends and cohorts.  You can finally quit pretending you believe in the Constitution and actually do it at the voting booth.

I’ve written extensively how Heritage Foundation, Free Congress Foundation and Moral Majority founder Paul Weyrich threatened to lead a revolt against the GOP in 2008 if McCain selected Mitt Romney as Vice President.  I’m certain Paul wasn’t just turning but on “puree” in his grave upon learning that Mitt Romney is now the GOP nominee.  Weyrich saw how unprincipled and deceptive Romney would be just to get power although I’m sure he’d buy the “worst of two evils” argument for November.  But I’m not going to be silent about stopping Rubio, Jindal (and possibly Santorum) from further desecrating our Constitution and rule of law.

The rule of law is being tortured and molested not only by this President, but by judges, policemen and policewomen, and the only party that has a chance keeps making excuses to go back on their promises.  (Remember Boehner and company’s 2010 Contract With America clone?)

The one time I have a chance to USE the authority George, Thomas, Samuel and others gave me to override the stupidity, blindness or subversion of others is on November 5th, 2012.  And although I can’t give any opportunity for the putative Pennsylvania Avenue pretender to remain in power any longer by withholding a Romney vote – I can at least uphold the constitution of the United States.  And I want you to do so too.

For the record I’ve generally liked Rubio but always felt his “conservatism,” while genuine, didn’t go to the bone.  Some were shocked that he endorsed Human Events 2006 Top 10 RINO over Gingrich or Santorum, but I wasn’t so shocked.  The mere fact he has NOT acknowledged that he is ineligible to be President or Vice President proves that he is not a Constitutionally correct conservative, much less worthy of our trust for carrying on the conservative mantle.

SusanaMartinezSooperMexican If you’re so convinced you need a Latino, then go with Susana Martinez or my Hispanic Hero - @SooperMexican.  But for God’s sake let’s don’t let the GOP tarnish constitutional lawfulness as they did fiscal conservatism.

The patriot hero Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch just argued this issue in Florida in the case of Obama’s eligibility.  Judicial Watch has taken on the FDA, DOJ, EPA, Big Pharma, White House (both Bush and Obama) and even the issue of domestic terrorist surveillance and is one of the longest patriotic conservative activists on our side.  This was the group that uncovered the leaking of classified documents to Hollywood filmmakers for the Obama Infomercial masquerading as a major film release to coincide with the 2012 election.  Named as one of the 10 most effective organizations by The Hill newspaper and the nations largest government watchdog group, Judicial Watch has filed 75 lawsuits and 850 FOIA requests against Obama administration alone.   What I’m trying to say here, is that no one on the right has ever confused Larry Klayman with Alex Jones.

For anyone who is willing to follow the facts (and the Constitution) – and not their own personal bias or agenda – the evidence concerning Natural Born Citizen is indisputable:

  • John Jay’s letters to Washington explaining why the President needed to be a soil born US citizen to two US citizen parents;
  • Jefferson, Adams, Monroe, Hamilton and many others all acknowledging Vatel’s Law of Nations as a chief guidebook for the writing of our Constitution that clearly defines Natural Born Citizen as I described.
  • The Federalist papers (No. 68) written by Hamilton confirm the same exact definition.
  • There are at least 3 Congressional acts that were passed after the Constitution was adopted that give us insight into what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born Citizen.” The 1790 First Congress, which included twenty members who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the “natural born Citizen” clause, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104) which provided that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”  George Washington would have vetoed this bill had he disagreed with it.  Or a similar one in the following Congress.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the matter as to what is a “natural born Citizen” was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and holding that "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners").
  • (A more scholarly overview of these and other facts on Mario Apuzzo’s site.)

The Left has tried exhaustively to confuse and denounce these conclusions.  They usually do it just like Obama’s lawyers tried to in the Judicial Watch Florida hearing where they simply leave out portions of a finding that are inconvenient.  You can watch that hearing here – it is thrilling to see Obama lawyers caught trying to deceive a judge:

Video streaming by Ustream

“So, PolitiJim why hasn’t any court already upheld this in all the cases brought against Obama’s eligibility so far?”

Good question.  Why did a judge find Aaron Walker guilty against harassing terrorist Brett Kimberlin just by reporting Kimberlin’s previous crimes and thus completely ignoring the First Amendment of our Constitution?  Because, not only are there terrible lawyers, there are idiot judges and corrupt judges.  We learned that the judge in Georgia was actually close friends of Obama’s attorney.  In San Diego, we saw a judge seemingly ready to find against Obama, but strangely changed his tune immediately following a visit from a paralegal from Obama’s law firm.  MOST of those eligibility cases were NOT brought on Article 2 (Natural Born Citizen) grounds, but on trying to introduced the forged birth certificate.  Not only did we have some really inept legal power, most courts claimed that the plaintiff did not have standing.  NONE actually argued the salient points of Article 2 or Minor v. Happersett precedent.  One tried to argue an Indiana state law (which has no parentage to explain of Federal law or the Constitution of the United States) and another tried to confuse “a US Citizen” with a “Natural Born Citizen” in the Wong Kim Ark case.

In fact, until Klayman came along, only the New Jersey court case with Mario Apuzzo was brought with some level of competence and without the hysterics and circus acts present in many others.  And Florida has the luxury of having a statute that allows ANY citizen to challenge the eligibility of any candidate on a Florida ballot.  But – if truth and the Constitution always won out in court – we wouldn’t have allowed 50 million babies to be killed since 1973.  That is more than the ENTIRE population of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas and Kentucky combined.

You don’t like what the Framers did in disallowing great conservatives like Jindal and Rubio from having an opportunity to lead this nation?  Fine.  Then FOLLOW THE FRIGGIN’ LAW and CONSTITUTION and change it the way you are SUPPOSED to.  With an Amendment.

If you know this and still vote for him, you are no better than the common crook who shoplifts because he can just ignore the law “this time.”  Or the playa who doesn’t want the responsibility of a “baby daddy” and decides it’s cheaper to take his victim to the free clinic.

Just keepin’ it real, homey.

Freedom ain’t free and every decision you make to subvert the Constitution, makes it easier to do the next time when your conscience is weakened.

PolitiJim!  What if we lose the election because of the Hispanic vote?!!”

What if Russia’s, Mexico’s or China’s Barack Obama 2 is raised as a REAL Manchurian candidate and is able to discipline themselves for the next two, three or four election cycles to look harmless, and does WORSE than what Obama has done?  It was OPENLY discussed in 1782 and was perpetrated on us since Bill Ayres was planning it 20 years ago.  It’s no longer hypothetical.  Did you really think it was possible for someone to get elected without ever showing their grade school, high school, college, grad school, state senate, social security and passport records?  We don’t even know who paid for this guys school tuition and he’s had $100 Million in donors that we can’t even track.

I suspect one of the reasons that so many of the founders reiterated that our form of Constitutional Republicanism would ONLY work with “moral” and “religious” people is because that they knew, people with no moral standard could take advantage of the freedoms and trusts in the system.  The rules for leaving your car unlocked are much different at church or a big city parking parking garage.  Cloward and Piven devoted their lives to seeking out these “weak points” and exploiting them to crash that very system.  Benjamin Franklin responded to someone asking him what kind of government the framers came up with for our new country.  Franklin famously responded:

A Republic.  If you can keep it.

As we know, most of society is more interested in Kim Kardashian’s latest tweet or boyfriend twit rather than volunteering to watch over the power they give their local school board or city council.  Civic duty now reflects of mostly corrupt relativists who see it for their own power or potential payday.  We’ve been come a culture of entertainment rather than effort, indulgence rather than integrity, and recreation rather than responsibility.

The Framers clearly knew that it would be difficult to stop the worst nature of men, and with admitted Divine help, attempted to design healthy conflicts so no person or group could have enough power to depart from the Constitutional Republican tenants and rights laid out in our very simple founding documents. However, as we’ve seen from Mr. Obama, someone who does not appreciate Judeo/Christian values or the individualistic freedoms of our heritage can not only wantonly ignore the law, but can INTENTIONALLY create crimes that can be covered up within his own sphere of the Executive Branch.  If Holder IS found in contempt by the House, it is Obama’s own donor flakey who gets the case deciding whether to prosecute him or not.

And don’t forget that at any time, Barack Obama can grant a pardon to ANYONE for ANY REASON without ANY repercussion.  Just like Mr. Holder arrange for terrorist and criminal donor pardons for Clinton.

Michelle Malkin is right that every GOP Senator that agreed to confirm Eric Holder despite his clear past crimes, bears some responsibility for every abuse of power perpetrated by Messrs Holder and Obama.  Even the Washington Post warned against Holder’s nomination and it was unheeded by Republicans who didn’t want to appear “racists” rather than merely being responsible with the power we loaned them.

And although many on the left want to redefine “Americanism” to be freedom without responsibility or welfare without obligation – the Framers knew that the Constitution itself prohibited such and thus focused on how to create a system of approvals that would survive momentary swings of popular opinion or mistakes.  The fact that ONLY the President and Vice President have these exceptions, underlies their concern of how quickly the position could become a tyrannical one.

And the most likely saboteur would not be someone who was raised to appreciate those American freedoms after living in tyranny – but someone who was intent to weaken them.  Someone who didn’t consider themselves or their families “American.”

I’ve already decided to sedate myself heavily with sangria and hold my nose in voting for the amoral Mitt just to stop more Obamanation.  But thank God the Founders intended a SEPERATE vote for the person who would step in to lead the country should the President be incapacitated or die. 

If Romney or the RINO establishment attempt to push a non-Natural Born Citizen, I’m writing in Sarah Palin.

And you know – even if he nominates a true Natural Born Citizen like Jeb Bush, it still might not be a bad idea for us not to automatically buy in to any RINO Romney wants to extend in power beyond his potential of eight years.

UPDATE: 6-24-2012

I’ve gotten some strange responses from this post, enforcing an anti-intellectual view of issues surrounding the “Natural Born Citizen” issue.  It saddens and pisses me off all at the same time.  Besides the comments below that make no sense (and show that there are conservatives who have no integrity) I have gotten private emails/direct tweets that are suggesting this issue has already been decided by the courts.  They are the Obama Administration's and the GOP Establishment’s Useful Idiots.  I address it here.


In a world where the very future of our republic is at stake, this is a stupid hill to die on.

For the record, you're (thankfully) in the minority.

How does not voting for the VICE PRESIDENT stop Romney from replacing Obama? (Perhaps you teach your children it is ok to break the law for "your" guy - but people fo the "other guy" can't. If so, nice liberals you'll be raising)

Michael Zak writes me:
Nominees with parents not citizens at birth: John Fremont, Chester Arthur, Charles Evans Hughes, Charles Curtis, Michael Dukakis.

Of course, this is a non-argument (Arthur's situation was not known until years after he left office by the way.)

Just because we've falsely allowed abortions means we shouldn't now bring it back into line?

As Rudy Giuliani proved in NYC, it isn't the law that keeps the bums off the street - it is the enforcement of it. By NOT continuing the enforcement of our Constitutional boundaries - we make the entire system weaker and prone to ...well, run away budgets, Presidents who ignore subpoena's and the law.

Michael in fact MAKES my argument if you include Barack Obama on your list.

Let's either uphold the entire Constitution, or change it, or start over - but please don't give me the kindergarten argument "but Johnny did it"

How do you know that Susan Martinez is eligible? How do you know sooper Mexican is? Not dissing them... just asking.

Good point. Don't know about SooperMexican (it was a joking comment just to make the point Rubio isn't the ONLY person to consider if you are going to play politics) - but Susana Martinez's father was a Sheriff of El Paso and it seems both parents WERE US Citizens at the time of her birth in El Paso. (Thanks for making me check!)

Thank you for taking the time to do such thorough research for your articles and making the time to lay out the facts you have. Anyone you disagree should be able to mount an intelligent response. Screw the ones that just want to complain and not debate.

I am always encouraged by your, and my own desire to stay pure in a political stance. namely those which speak directly to constitutional authority.
It is entirely impossible for me to vote for any one who is not a 100% natural born citizen of the United States of America as per the Constitution. However, Romney is not one either; both parents must also be natural born citizens.
I will also bring this to your you know, I don't believe religion [as per the Constitution] has anything to do a country which was designed to be materialistic and based it's most primordial and fundamental purpose on the "Natural" law, a law which cannot exist out side of free market.
Morality? Yes. Religion? No. Shiria is a religion. Mormonism is a religion. Catholicism is a religion. Even Jesus hated religion. So I feel as though you can take a perfectly good argument, eloquently espouse it, then loose it in a flurry of irrelevant overtures. Do not mistake this for irreverence or disrespect, I would only like to be abler to agree with you 100%, 100% of the time :))
It is my contention that the reason we are left holding our noses and voting in a man who has no authority under the Constitution of the United States of America to hold that office, is entirely due to the fact that all those who qualify are vilified and rejected by all those who assign for themselves the title of white washed tomb and stone the only men capable of actually obeying their oath.
One more case in point...if Thomas Jefferson had been running for Potus today, he would have been ran out by all those claiming the status of conservative.
Also...the only amendments allowed by the constitution itself is those which do not put into jeopardy the freedoms of equality which are it's only purpose. Any man who has not been tied to this great endeavor by the blood of his or her naturally born father and mother has little understanding of it's delicate nature, and is not qualified to occupy the highest office of the land. And for this reason this supreme law was written and cannot be amended. Whew my phone is bagging me to stop :))

Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More