Rubio, Amnesty and Article II
I realize that many Tea Party folks have fallen for leftist tricks aimed at keeping the current Article II constitutional crisis off the campaign table, but just how far are they willing to fall in the name of political agendas?
Real “constitutionalists” are as concerned about Article II as they are any other constitutional text, maybe even more so since the current Muslim-n-Chief is a one-man constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. Faux “constitutionalists” are those who cherry-pick which parts of the founding document to take issue with, or make up new meanings for old words, all based on their individual political agenda.
Many Tea Party folks seem to not care whether or not we uphold Article II constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice President. Others seem perfectly happy to accept fraudulent definitions of the term “Natural Born Citizen” so long as it suits their political agenda. In both cases, our founding principles and values take a back seat to political expedience.
However, there is a reason why members of congress tried to alter the Natural Born Citizen requirement at least eight times in the run-up to Obama’s fraudulent election in 2008 – why leftists insist that the founders meant “anchor baby” when they required that only Natural Born Citizens of the United States could hold the highest offices in our land – and that Marco Rubio would make the perfect VP selection for Mitt Romney in 2012….
In short, the reason is — kill the constitution and AMNESTY by any means.
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 
Well Harold I have been arguing this point from day one, I even put all the documentation in my Newsletter of years ago. This article explains why the Tea Party kept ignoring it and argue the point. Interestingly the Left did not argue, just ignored it. The one issue I mentioned was the “Father” part. While i did not, in those documents see any reference to being the “Father” the issue of citizenship via the Father has been strong, and still is in some country for a long time, mostly country planning war and needing cannon fodder. So the documents could have been interpreted in line with the basic proprietary value applied
to Citizenship as implied in the argument. However the bloodline issue was never argued in and for itself unless women were not citizens, does the right to vote gives validity to citizenship claim. It might be
interesting to see some travel documents of that time, were women listed a “British female”. I may do so if I find the time I have a
collection of very old book and newspapers. Also how Judaism can only be receive via the Mother. That being the case Citizenship start at conception. Well, always much to learn, but one thing is sure, a
democratic society cannot be allowed to have male dominated laws.