MUST WATCH: Sen. Marco Rubio’s speech at Faith and Freedom Coalition conference

I can’t begin to tell you how moving I found this speech by Sen. Marco Rubio. He gets it. He gets what America is about and can communicate it in such a way that it just might bring a few tears to your eyes. Man does he ever get it.

In this speech he talks about what actually makes America great and why it has everything to do with our faith and our creator. There were things he said that I wanted to cut out and post separately, but the speech just kept getting better and better to the point that by the time I hit the button to cut the speech it was over.

But he nails it in this speech, why God, our faith and our Judeo-Christian heritage is so important to this nation and why it represents the only path to prosperity for every American. And why it is the only reason why the individual is free in this country to pursue his or her dreams, regardless of what their last name is.

Rubio gets it on such a deep level that I believe he might just be the next Ronald Reagan to this country. I just hope he’s that ambitious because I want him in the oval office.

No doubt about it, this is a must watch:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • aquaviva

    He’s great.

    Next he needs a term or two as FL Governor.

    Conservative GOP has a deeply talented bench.

    It’s a nice problem to have.

  • poljunkie

    That was a well put together speech.

    • sno_warrior

      Where was his Teleprompter????????

  • That was a Presidential speech!

  • capelady

    Obviously, Marco Rubio is a rising star in the GOP… but is the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution any less problematic for him than for Obama? Were his parents American citizens when he was born? I don’t think they were… so, shouldn’t that be an eligibility issue for the position of President of the United States? Has Obama established a precedent now so that none of this matters going forward?

    • wodiej

      Last I heard he is not eligible to serve as president but I may be wrong. I’ve heard conflicting stories about when his parents gained citizenship and when he was born.

        • gringa61


        • gringa61

          Oh, computers! I meant to click on “Reply” to Capelady and accidentally hit “like” on the comment made regarding eligibility for President above.

        • Read the comments too, people. The author of that article got hammered by many other conservative thinkers.

          • keyesforpres

            Yeah, the commentors knew their stuff.

        • PVG

          What a relief! Thank you Scoop for clearing this up. I was thinking he was not eligible…….now I will gladly spread the news!

          • Nukeman60

            The article does not clear up the definition of ‘natural born citizen’. Until that controversy is put to bed, the debates will continue, whether it’s Obama, Rubio, or John Doe.

            We must have a delineation between ‘citizen’, ‘native citizen’, and ‘natural born citizen’. There are strong arguments on both sides and I feel the Supreme Court must weigh in on this before it’s settled conclusively. It doesn’t matter what I think, or anybody else thinks, on this website or elsewhere.

            • keyesforpres

              We are supposed to go by original intent. Not the opinion of the Supremes.

              • Nukeman60

                I agree, but who here determines original intent. That is the problem. The term ‘natural born citizen’ was mentioned in the Constitution, but never defined. If it was meant to be citizen born, then that’s what they would have said. Something has to clearly define the term so that there is no argument, and no one less than the Supreme Court should be the one to do it.

                • keyesforpres

                  Our Founders never dreamed we wouldn’t know what natural born meant. They got it from the “Law of Nations”. Natural born is natural law….your lineage.

                • keyesforpres

                  Also, you don’t think the Supremes would be objecive do you? At least not the ones O put on the bench.

                • Nukeman60

                  Well, that’s another issue altogether, but who else would you have determine the original intent of the founders concerning the term ‘natural born citizen’ than the highest court in the land?

                • keyesforpres

                  I say we do what we’ve always done (until Obama) and that is only allow those on the ballot whose (both) parents were US citizens at the time of their birth.

                  I find it odd that folks try to cite the 14th amendment to support Rubio. His parents weren’t US citizens at the time of his birth. Based on what was recorded during the 14th amendment proceedings, there might be a valid argument that he wasn’t a US citizen at the time of his birth. More so that, than he would have natural born status!

                • Nukeman60

                  The 14th amendment only deals with the term ‘citizen’ and I don’t believe there is any doubt that Rubio was born in this country. I’m just saying that either we get a Supremes opinion on this or get an amendment to define explicitly what ‘natural born citizen’ is. Until then, it’s merely one blogger, author, debater, against another and it goes nowhere.

                • keyesforpres

                  Nuke, there was a reason why the dems tried many times throughout much of the 2000’s to change the natural born clause…they were paving the way for O. They knew what natural born meant and that is why they kept trying to get rid of it. We have never allowed a presidential candidate in the past put their name on the ballot that had foreigners for parents.

                • Nukeman60

                  I hope you are not trying to convince me that ‘natural born citizen’ means born of this country with both parents as citizens, because I already believe that. I was just making a point as to finding a resolution to this continuing argument that rages on the blogosphere on a daily basis.

                • keyesforpres

                  Nuke, have you read thru the comments on that American Thinker article? They obliterate the author. Several mention the case of Minor v. Happersett that settled the natural born argument. There is no need to take it to the Supremes to decide what natural born means. Only if someone is eligible.

                  Read the comments.

                • Nukeman60

                  Yes, I read all 61 comments. I’ve read just about every article about the subject that you can find. I seen the arguments. It still remains that people are divided. I don’t believe there is any other way to look at ‘natural born citizen’ than the way you are looking at it. There would have been no other reason for the founding fathers to put it in the Constitution explicitly where they did.

                  Minor vs Happersett does not address the issue of nbc, it only mentions it in a side note as to say that, yes, a person born in this country of 2 citizen parents, is indeed a natural born citizen. But it doesn’t discount others. That’s why we need a ruling.

                • keyesforpres

                  Actually, that does discount others.

                • Nukeman60

                  No it doesn’t. If I say a man is a human, that doesn’t discount the fact that a woman is also a human, even though a woman is not a man. I believe the founding fathers meant for it to be ‘born in this country of 2 citizens of this country’ but they didn’t explicitly define it as such in the Constitution and therein lies the problem.

                • keyesforpres

                  I’m done Nuke….both parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth to be natural born. They would not have put in OR citizens at the founding of the nation.

                  Research, “Law of Nations”.

                • Nukeman60

                  I’m not really sure what you’re done with me about, as I’ve agreed with you in every single one of my replies. If you would read what I posted rather than continually telling me to read articles and books that I have already addressed, our conversation could have been shorter. There is a confusion among people and it should be clarified. Whether the founders followed ‘the Law of Nations’ or not is not spelled out in the Constitution itself. Period. It should be somewhere.

                • Can’t resist doing this…
                  Aawwww…..I am squeeezzed!

                • lostdutchman

                  It says “…of this, there can be no doubt.” Meaning that natural born meant born in the country of parents who were citizens. That sounds rather definite in discounting all other types of citizens. Are you thinking that there can be other circumstances of birth which would also entitle a person to be called a nbC, based on those criteria?

                • Nukeman60

                  No, what it means is the same that we all agree on, that being a person born in the US of citizen parents is, without a doubt, a natural born citizen. No one ever argues against such a person.

                  The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” – Minor vs Happersett

                  This is what it says. The last two sentences are paramount. Of one, there is no doubt. Of the other, there is still doubt. Meaning not yet decided and they did not decide it here. Supreme Court words are written/spoken very carefully. They didn’t have to define the term in this opinion, and they chose not to, as is there way.

                • lostdutchman

                  Actually, it has recently come to light that Chester A Arthur was also an usurper, like Obama. His father didn’t naturalize for several years after Chester was born. He covered his tracks about it quite well, going so far as to have trusted friends burn his private papers after his death.

                • keyesforpres

                  Well then, if is has been written that Chester was a usurper because his parents had not be naturalized at his birth, than Rubio is definitely not eligible.

                  It’s unreal to me how folks are saying that natural could mean different things. That being born to two US citizens is simply one form of nb. That’s like saying that blue is blue, but yellow could be blue too!

                • lostdutchman

                  Minor v Happersett WAS a Supreme Court case, in 1875. The definition was given by the Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, and the court was unanimous in it’s decision. No official objection to this definition in that case has been made, and in the 135 years since it, there have been no challenges to it, in fact it has been cited several times in other cases.
                  No, the case was not about what an nbC was, but in arriving at the decision it was necessary to establish the citizenship of the plaintiff, Virginia Minor. While she lost her case, (being eligible to vote in Missouri as a female) that had no effect on the definition of nbC. At that time, voting rights were the province of the States, not the federal government, and Missouri said no to the ladies.

                  As for original intent, there is plenty written by Madison, Jefferson, Jay, and probably others on the subject. It was so widely understood, at that time, that it wasn’t felt necessary to have to explain it. This sentiment was also echoed by Justice Waite in his presenting his reasoning for the definition he was to give for nbC.

                • Nukeman60

                  Wow. I’m getting weary discussing this.

                  Minor vs Happersett determined whether or not women were considered citizens. They determined that if born of citizen parents in the jurisdiction of the US, that person was naturally a citizen. They never determined the definition of Natural Born Citizen. If one is a nbc, then one has to be a citizen, but the reverse, of course, is not true. They never determined the definition of natural born citizen.

                  They said that a person born in the US of citizen parents was, indeed, a nbc, but they did not say that a nbc was a person born in the US of citizen parents. There’s a big difference here. That’s why it falls short of a definition.

                  Now it is commonly thought that the definition of the term comes from the treatise, ‘The Law of Nations’ by Vattel, and I tend to agree, but my opinion, just like many others’ opinions, doesn’t count. There has to be something substantial ‘in our Constitution’ that clarifies that and to date it does not. I feel a clarification by the Supreme Court at the least, or more importantly, an amendment is needed to settle it once and for all.

            • This is a good article by my friend J.b Williams Nukefriend. He explains it pretty well here.

              • Nukeman60

                I agree with everything he says. However, the part about one or two parents being citizens can be a bit ambiguous, depending on how you take the term ‘parents’ and ‘fathers’, in the following paragraph:

                The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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‘ – Vattel (bold type is mine)

                Whether we take the terms ‘parents’ and ‘citizens’ highlighted in bold type as to being plural due to double parents or plural because of ‘parents’ and ‘citizens’ being groups is left to interpretation. Also, the term ‘fathers’ could be interpreted as either fathers only (not mothers) or fathers as in forefathers.

                So we see ambiguity either way, hence the need for some legal opinion or law, either Supreme opinion or Congressional amendment to clarify these terms.

                At any rate I agree with your friend Williams, but I just hadn’t considered the idea of father only compared to mother and father.

                Thanks for the link. I will add it to my collection.

            • SaraPFan

              It does clear it up because the Constitution clause for a Presidential candidate is not limited to ‘natural born citizen’. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is also mentioned. His parents became naturalized citizens which guaranteed all the rights and protections of any person born here. Rubio was born here. I don’t understand how this is much different than Obama’s ancestry except his father was never a citizen. Obama Sr only had a student visa and was exiled from this country after it was discovered he had multiple wives. He lived in Kenya. Rubio’s parents were naturalized citizens and lived here.

              • Nukeman60

                Rubio was born in 1971. His parents were naturalized in 1975. Therefore, they were not naturalized citizens ‘at the time of his birth’. That is a key point.

                As to Obama, since his father was a British citizen as well as a Kenyan, that also made Barack a duel citizen. Just another monkey wrench in the cogs, as it were.

                • SaraPFan

                  He was still born here.There are a lot of immigrants whose children were actually born here. The children are natural born citizens.

                • Nukeman60

                  (/Sigh). Just being born here makes you a ‘citizen’. To be a ‘natural born citizen’ requires further stipulations. That’s what the entire hubbub is all about. We’re talking definitions here for the Constitution, not just casual conversation about what’s naturally happening.

                  Would you say that any anchor baby meets the qualifications to be President?

                • SaraPFan

                  It’s not like he was found on a tire tube coming in illegally from Cuba. He wasn’t an anchor baby because his parents came to the US legally. His parents also were naturalized citizens like so many immigrants who come to this country in the 20th century. If Barack Obama is qualified to be a citizen, so is Rubio.

                • Nukeman60

                  No, I never said he was an anchor baby. I was just comparing US citizens. Also, he was born in 1971, his parents were ‘naturalized’ in 1975, so they were not US citizens ‘at the time of his birth’. These are important points, and points that have been stated elsewhere in this thread. I apologize for repeating.

                  As to your last statement, I don’t believe Obama is eligible, so two wrongs do not make a right. I like what Rubio has to say and I think he can and will be a powerful force in the Senate, but that doesn’t mean we set aside the Constitution when it doesn’t fit our plans. That’s something that Obama does, and does on a regular basis, it seems.

          • CJ

            As Paula wrote; “Read the comments too, people. The author of that article got hammered by many other conservative thinkers.”

          • keyesforpres

            An article by American Thinker does not mean Rubio is eligible.

            • PFFV

              If Obama is eligible Marco Rubio sure hell is.

              • keyesforpres

                Obama is not eligible if Obama Sr. is his father. If it turns out that Frank Marshall Davis is his father (I believe he is) Obama is still not eligible because that means he produced a fraudulent bc.

        • CJ

          The hearing tomorrow morning in Florida will be well worth watching. Presumably, when the dust finally settles, we’ll have a court decision on exactly what a Natural Born Citizen is.

          • Nukeman60

            Don’t count on it. It may well end up much like the Indiana court case – Inaccurate conclusions from improper thinking. But we can only hope.

        • lostdutchman

          Scoop, you fall for this argument you’re just like all the scoffers of the importance of nbC. For example, the Naturalization Act of 1790 mentions natural born citizen, but it is the only naturalization legislation to mention nbC, and it was replaced by the act of 1795, which changes the terminology and removes nbc or any reference to it.
          Further, making ‘cute’ remarks about capitalizing the letter ‘c’ in Citizen is witty, by about HALF! The founders had respect for the term citizens, so that American Citizens were considered proper nouns. If you notice, all the proper nouns in the Constitution are also capitalized.

          The author of your reference is either intentionally trying to turn your eyes away from the issue, or just plain stupid, at least about this topic.

          Rubio’s parents didn’t naturalize for a number of years after coming to the US. Refugees or not makes no difference about citizenship. Just because Marco was born in the US makes him a citizen, by the 14th Amendment. NOTHING in that amendment pertains to natural born citizens, and if I recall, it isn’t even mentioned in the amendment.

    • gringa61

      At least both of Marco Rubio’s parents loved this country enough to become legal citizens and proudly have pledged allegiance to it, unlike BHO’s parents, one of whom was never even a citizen.

      • wodiej

        that was not the point. The point was is Rubio constitutionally qualified.

        • That is the point. The parents must be naturalized citizens at the time of birth. Liberals say this is not necessary, or that only one naturalized parent is enough. This is what the constitutionally qualified issue is all about.

      • keyesforpres

        Rubio is not showing total allegiance with his dream amnesty talk.

    • I didn’t mean that he should be POTUS- but that is what Ronald Reagan might sound like today. I, personally, don’t trust Rubio much more than I trust any establishment Republican, but the speech is conservative red meat……expressed far more eloquently than I’ve heard most other Republicans. Allen West is really good, but this particular speech was exceptional. I wish my parents, who voted for Obama and only listen to spanish channel news, could see that there is an alternative voice out there.

      This speech is as powerful as Rush Limbaugh, only it comes from the political class, and so it will likely be ignored- people need to hear it so they know that it is possible to elect those that really do share their views, rather than the myopic view that only those that pander and play identity politics can represent them.

      I wish it would be translated and shown on spanish channels, like they do for Obama class warfare BS.

      • keyesforpres

        No offense, but I wish we’d do away with Spanish channels in this country and force people to learn English. One is supposed to be proficient in English before becoming a US citizen and therefore, should be getting informed in English.

      • capelady

        Yes, fine… that is an opinion piece that makes a good case, but there is still a lot of controversy over what ‘natural born citizen’ really means, and one view is that both parents had to be citizens when the person was born. There was a court case in the late 19th Century that is often cited, but no real legal qualification has been provided by Congress and the controversy continues….

        “U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” ….Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

        Clearly, this has surfaced in the face of Obama’s eligibility issues, but it does not appear that this dispute has been resolved and Congress may have to address it in order to avoid questions in the future.

        • keyesforpres

          Actually, the writers of the Constitution never intended for a judge to be the final say on the Constitution. We are supposed to go by original intent. The natural born clause states that the president must be natural born or a citizen at the founding of the nation. They put that last part in because none of them would have had natural born status since none of their parents would have been citizens at the time of their birth.

          Our Founders wanted no dual loyalties. I am seeing Rubio putting his Spanish surname ahead of being an American with his support for amnesty. I am sick of it.

      • capelady

        BTW… I want to thank you for your efforts… it is a great website and one that I check out on a daily basis!

      • So, I read the article and it made me tired.

        The first half talks about research done by the Heritage foundation, which is very interesting but has no bearing whatsoever on Rubio’s case. It then pivots to defend Rubio’s qualification based entirely on the 14th amendment with absolutely no support for the conclusion, while those who have studied the constitution and the amendment in particular have concluded otherwise and have offered thorough arguments to support their conclusions. Finally, the article bizarrely pretends Reagan’s praise for Vietnamese boat people is somehow relevant.


        • keyesforpres

          I would think American Thinker would know that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the qualifications for president. That was settled when the Constitution was originally written. Natural born has to do with the law of nature. That comes from your parents. Especially one’s father. They wanted no dual loyalties.

          In fact, if one researches the Congressional Globe of 1866 the proceedings were written down as they were writing and debating the things in the 14 amendment and Jacob Howard was recorded as saying that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant babies born to foreigners, aliens….were not US citizens.

        • keyesforpres

          Early in the article it talks about being born to two US citizens. It’s pretty clear.

      • keyesforpres

        The 14th amendment has nothing to do with natural born. It has nothing to do with the qualifications for president. The 14th amendment was about making the former slaves citizens.

        The Congressional Globe of 1866 was where the proceedings of the 14th amendment were recorded. Jacob Howard was recorded as saying that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant that babies born to foreigners, aliens…. were not US citizens.

    • SaraPFan

      Isn’t Obama and Napolatino violating the Constitution right now in regards to trying to get 800K illegal Hispanic votes in November? The Obama administration and media would be the last to try to raise a red flag about “natural born citizens”. I’m just saying.

      • capelady

        Of course the left has nothing but disdain for the Constitution, but we expect the Republican Party to respect it, and they are the ones expected to vet our candidates.

  • gringa61


    God saved this man out of a communist regime for a grand purpose. I’m proud to call him my senator!

  • If we are lucky enough to get this guy as a VP this time around! We will be very very lucky indeed! A great man!

    • Durus

      Rubio can’t be VP either. Constitution requires the VP to be eligible for the office of the President. If Rubio’s parents were not naturalized Citizens at the time of his birth, then Rubio cannot be eligible for the office of the President.

      Obama illegally obtaining the office of the President doesn’t make it right for the GOP to attempt to usurp the office of President by inserting an ineligible candidate.

      • I have learned quiet a bit about Rubio from reading the comments on this thread and my enthusiasm for him has waned somewhat.

  • wodiej

    “the source of your freedom is your faith.”

    And a person can’t have freedom if they don’t learn self sufficiency. 50% of Americans are dependent on some kind of taxpayer funded gov’t assistance. Most are not accountable as to looking for work, gaining more work skills or education. They should be drug tested, have to do volunteer work etc. They is why they stay in the cycle they are in.

    The message was good but a president that does not make. I’m not sure Rubio is technically even a NBC.

    • keyesforpres

      He isn’t natural born. He is native born. Therefore, he is not eligible to be president. It is worrisome that so many conservatives don’t get that. His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth. He should be decent and admit that he is not eligible. He needs to show that the Constitution trumps his ambition.

  • bobmc220

    This guy is really, really good, I’m impressed.

  • Rshill7

    This man has been inspiring every time I’ve ever heard
    him, whether it was in the Florida House or the DC Senate. He is a great speaker, and he speaks from the heart.

    “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:45 NIV)

    He’s young, and he’s of Spanish decent, whose parents hail from a communist regime. They left, and chose America, pursuing freedom and opportunity. The kind unique to our founding…and it was our founding, on tenets unique to the world, which caused us to thrive. What our Judeo-Christian ethic sought to install and instill, was not a cramming down the throats of religious tenets. It was freedom. Freedom of thought, of religion. The freedom to pursue dreams and to thrive. The definitions of those freedoms left up to the individual to define as that he or she individual, saw fit, so long as others were not hurt by their decision.

    Does the left espouse that kind of freedom? Certainly not. They seek to cram their narrow ideology down everyone’s throat, whether they believe it, espouse it, embrace it or not. They seek to mandate their ideas on everyone else. They seek to quash dissent. Our side is nothing like that. Our side is freedom. Freedom to believe or not believe. Not equal outcomes, but equal opportunity. There’s a huge difference there, and yes, it’s obvious that Marco Rubio does indeed, “get it”. He’s lived it. Whether he is chosen to be the VP or not, matters little. He’s the kind of up and comer we need.

    It was a breath of fresh air to hear this talk. Exceptional.

    • lostdutchman

      Inspiring, refreshing, great Senator, great speaker, a veritable whirlwind of fresh air, all these…and MORE!

      Except…. not Constitutionally qualified to be Vice President of the US, let alone President.

      • Rshill7

        He’s much closer to being qualified than Obama is.

        When the time comes and every USA eye turns to you for the final decision.
        Which way will you lean? The entire country will be lobbying you on both sides. Why, you’ll be ripped limb from limb. Be careful out there. We are all counting on you.

        Make the right decision.

        • freenca

          Whether the Whitehouse is or isn’t in his future, Rubio WOULD be an excellent replacement for Reid in the Senate in 2013.

  • One word on Rubio….Amnesty

    • Patriot077

      It worries me a bit as well, but TPTB have let illegal immigration metastasize for such an extended period that I think it may very well take someone with perspective like Marco Rubio to begin to unravel that tangled web.

      Whatever they do at this point will not make everyone happy but they damn well better seal the border before they offer up any solutions and new legislation. (IMHO)

  • This was a very fine speech. Though, early lines sounded like they might be support for amnesty. Nevertheless, Rubio has also claimed that Romney offers a stark contrast to Obama, which is a blatant lie. No matter how well one speaks, we must be relentless in holding any and all politicians accountable.

    • marketcomp

      Yeh, I know what your saying, On The Mark! It might be a contrast but it ain’t that sharp!

  • Botzilla

    Could you imagine Rubio debating Doh! Biden?

  • PVG

    No notes, no teleprompter! Totally from the heart.

  • I have some issues with him honestly, the whole dream act stuff sticks in my craw.
    time will tell what hes really like.
    I hope I am wrong.

  • You’re right Scoop……he gets it! The key word is the end of his speech ‘Identity.’ This is really about our identity.

    It’s just like the Israelites back in bible time when they were presented with a choice. Do they want to have God as their King and governed by judges like they had always been? Or, do they want their own king…….just like the nations all around them? And their answer was ‘No! We want a king….just like all the nations around us.’ That was also the question we were presented 4 years ago and, just like the Isralites then, we also rejected God. We chose a ‘Saul,’ and we are surely, surely paying the price for our decision. In a way, it is a disguised blessing because God is letting us have a taste of our own decision. The question is: Do we want to continue to be like the nations all around us still? Or, do we want to embrace God again?

    Again, it’s this ‘Identity’ that Marco Rubio was talking about. Who do we want to be governed by?

  • PVG

    No notes, no teleprompter. AWESOME!

  • yanksrule

    Mark Rubio gets it..Great speech spoken from the Heart, not from reading a teleprompter!!

  • M_J_S

    BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Rubio has no credibility with me. He’s is the next generation of Mitt Romney.

  • He’s an amnesty shill, so he’s no better than Obama or Shamnesty. He can kiss me between the back pockets.

    • PVG

      Usually your comments are thoughtful.

      • keyesforpres

        Rubio is bad on amnesty. He’s let his Spanish surname trump being an American. Also, he nevers admits that he can’t be president because he does not have natural born status. His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.

          • CJ

            I fear Rubio is not what many conservatives seem to believe he is.
            Sure, he speaks well, looks good, intelligent and all the rest. His record has some rough spots, tho.

            • keyesforpres

              Yes, it’s like Obama fans loved him because he sounded good in his speeches. Rubio makes some great speeches….he’s still not eligible to hold the office of VP because he’s not eligible to be president, just like o isn’t. Rubio needs to come clean on this issue.

      • He’s an amnesty shill. What more do you want me to say? Because he’s a RINO Republican, it makes it better when he says it, than when Obama does? I am not in favor of amnesty or any second chances for anyone caught in this country, illegally. I think they should be imprisoned, along with anyone that harbors them, in any way, shape or form. Rubio favors pretty much what Obama does, and that shows he’s not a Conservative, at all.

    • M_J_S

      What if you have no back pockets?

  • Kara0515

    I have lived in Florida since 2008. I enthusiastically supported Marco during the 2010 election cycle until I learned that while Speaker of the House, he supported a Florida cap and trade law when he was speaker, supported socializing property insurance in Florida while speaker, supported medical care paid by taxpayers to illegals children to mention just a few. In addition, he did not join the senate tea party collation, he is pro-amnesty and he heartily endorsed RINO Romney. (How can any true conservative endorse RINO Romney?)

    While I voted for Marco and am thrilled that he soundly defeated Christ in 2010, I will remain **VERY** skeptical about him until he demonstrates a solid, consistent and sound voting record and ACTION that’s in alignment with core tea party and conservative principles instead of just talking the talk.

    (Also, keep in mind that Rubio is a career politician and has little, if any direct experience in the PRIVATE sector who has distanced himself from the tea party).

    **Post note regarding Marco’s support of FL cap and trade**: Marco voted for and championed a “green” energy bill for the state of Florida: Florida House Bill 7135 the 2008 Energy and Economic Development Legislation. Among other deplorable “green” initiatives, HB 7135 requires “major” emitters to report emissions through the Florida Climate Registry and calls for the development of a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the state of Florida. While campaigning for the senate, Marco said during a town hall meeting that he does not support any form of cap and trade or emission mandates. How can that be true if he not only voted for, but “championed” HB 7135 as the FL speaker of the house?

    • wodiej

      thanks for the information. Actions speak louder than words.

  • Joe

    Boy oh Boy !!

    He is great – What an inspiration he would be to young AMERICANS

    I would love to see a VP debate with

    Sen. Rubio VS Joe Plugs (Joe better bring a change of pants)

  • One of Americas fearless patriots,
    Senator “Tea Party” Rubio,
    We’ll see you at the rally happening at a voting booth near you November.6th.2012, and don’t forget to bring the family and friends for a histirical vote turnout and remember quanity counts for extra bonus points in committee;… don’t chu know?…LOL (:

    Tea Party Patriot
    X’ed RINO / Socialist Senator Arlen Spector was on CSPAN-2 early this morning, 6-17-2012 Washington Journel Program, speaking to the Tea Party movement, if you have a minute listen to this jerk while passing gas, at least you’ll get soom relief, warning! just in case of sickening bilge keep the bedpan handy.


  • porightscoopfan

    We are not called to be “ambassadors of our faith” we are called to be Ambassadors for Christ.

    In the parable of the talents, the stewards were given 1, 2, and 5 talents. Sparky here says he wrote about this parable in his book (or somebody did for him) then he says they were given 1, 2, or 3 talents. (It was probably a Mormon who wrote his speech, they’re not known for reading the real book very often, so it was an understandable oversight.

    He’s reading this speech. This is obviously one of the most important speeches he will give because of the timing and the fact that Romney needs the ‘faith community’ in the worst way and wants to talk about his faith in the ‘least way’, so I’m not surprised Rubio put so much effort into it, but it is scripted.
    The camera pulled back early on because you could see the motion of his eyes so clearly. The screens must be at a distance outside the wide camera shot, but his focal distance matched the crowd distance that he did a good job of engaging individual audience members between engaging the reading screen. At least it wasn’t as bad as watching Obama’s teleprompter bobble head.

    The Mitt-job is going to try so hard this year to grasp the ring, but I’m not really interested in listening to pandering to the faith community from Rubio.

    Listening to Romney try to talk about faith to Christians will turn my stomach in absolute knots with embarrassment for him. At least Beck has been attempting to mainstream Mormonism since the last election, so his job will be somewhat easier.

  • c4pfan

    Thanks for posting Scoop. I hope we just learn that speeches aren’t enough. We shall see, if he is the VP pick. I don’t think it will matter if he’s natural born or not, because it’s the establishment that decides who gets to be in or not anyway in the GOP.

  • zanografix

    The mark of a true birther is that individual who insists by any means and convolutions that the mere fact that Obama was born in Hawaii makes him a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen no construct or law must be passed to make it so and yet we see all of these semantics about having only one parent be a citizen or case upon case that has nothing to do with Obama continue to be pressed by either side. All citizens enjoy all the rights afforded by the Constitution with the exception of being able to be president or vice president:that requires a higher standard of being natural born and is an exception.

    Forty-two out of forty-four president were either natural born or grandfathered in because there was no United States when they were born. Chester Arthur was never elected and gained office because Garfield was assasinated. He hid the truth about his eligibility, much like obama, and burnt his records so the truth would never be known. The republicans dropped him from being considered for a term on his own and a democrat, Grover Cleveland was elected.

    Obama is the first president to ignore the natural born clause. He has spent almost 2 million dollars trying to keep his name on the ballot by getting the case thrown out, getting the judge to agree we the people have no standing in the issue, by not showing up and getting the judge to rule in his favor in absentia. He has mocked the evidence and not shown one compelling bit of evidence on his own to prove he is a natural born citizen as defined by article 2 using ad hominem attacks as a defense instead.

    It’s time to end this and Marco Rubio is in a similar position. I hope and pray that Mitt Romney will go elsewhere to pick his vp:two wrongs don’t make a right. It would be even better if Rubio, himself, srood before the convention floor upon nomination and said he was not eligible. This would put the NBC status of Obama in the spotlight and finally the media could no longer ignore the fact that Obama is ineligible.

    • keyesforpres

      Excellent post. I agree…Rubio needs to put the Constitution above his ambition and flat out admit he is not eligible.

  • Durus

    Whether you want to believe it or not, the Founders did define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution.

    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.

    Who was a “natural born Citizen” at the adoption of the Constitution?

    If as Judge Jay related, “natural born Citizen” was to be a strong check to ensure that persons eligible for the office of the President owed sole allegiance to the United States, then no one would become a “natural born citizen” until the Citizens who swore allegiance to the US Constitution had raised children born on American soil to attain the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    The Founders provided for the time required to raise children who would be “natural born Citizens” eligible for the office of the President once they attained the age of thirty five, by allowing in the interim for those who had sworn allegiance at the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, to be eligible for the office of Presidents, as “Citizens of the United States.

    The provision to allow a “Citizen of the United States” to be eligible for the office of the President expired when the last person who swore allegiance at the time of the adoption of the Constitution died.

    So today, persons eligible to the office of the President shall be a “natural born Citizen”, born under the same circumstances as the first generation “natural born Citizens” were born, to two parents who were Citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth. Such persons have attained the age of thirty five and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


    RS….Rubio is not “the next Ronald Regan”…….with his “Dream Act 2”, and his love for the Bushes, he might not even retain his Senate seat.

  • It’s a puppet show. They tell you that the Russians are sending weapons to Syria, and those weapons are killing people. What they don’t tell you is the Russian weaponry was financed by American money and sweat through the World Bank, and Fed. The list is long. Stop watching the show and look behind the curtain: The Creature from Jekyll Island. Nice speech, but he knows he’s not tell you everything.

    • The Russians have one of the largest collections of natural resources on the planet. They are rolling in oil and gas. They have plenty of money. They aren’t financing anything with American money. We don’t have any money.

  • As a practical matter, the natural born requirement will *never* mean anything unless Obama is deemed, by some agency, through a process that holds up, to be an illegitimate office holder.

    Until, and unless that happens, “natural born” has been mooted from it’s original meaning. Doesn’t matter what rulings you bring up, doesn’t matter what states manage to pass their own ballot requirements on it (exception below). I don’t see anyone in our lifetime *ever* ruling against “The First Black President” on those grounds. (Never mind the faultiness of that specious category.)

    It ain’t gonna happen. It certainly won’t happen under a Romney administration. In fact, the situation might get worse under Romney. (Maybe “Arnold” will run in 2020.)

    The only ways of getting “natural born” back to its original meaning in our lifetime is via the amendment process, or via major upheaval. The kind Obama and his Cloward-Piven cronies have been trying to make happen, and *we* are trying to prevent. Also, a longer, safer timeframe method to do it (40-75 years) is by a significant majority of states being able to enforce ballot initiatives. We should get started on that now. But I don’t see any help coming from the Supreme Court on this issue. (They can strike down or uphold ballot initiatives without ever having to deal with “natural born.”)

    (A total outside chance for faster implementation would be if some explicit ruling manages to “grandfather” Obama in, and protect him from further scrutiny on the issue, while preventing further abuse. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, either.)

  • Meh… not really a fan of him, so not a must watch for me…

  • Rob_Bryant

    Unfortunately, I don’t think I will ever find another link on the web that even mentions Marco Rubio without the birthers jumping around.

    Excellent speech.

    • wodiej

      unfortunate that those who wish people to follow the constitution and be a natural born citizen meaning two parents of citizenship when one is born are called “birthers.”

      • KenInMontana

        Perhaps, then instead of incorrectly using the Case Law practice of citing precedents to “interpret” original intent, a practice that was started at Harvard law school when it was run by progressive thinkers, you should try working with source materials and laws passed at, or immediately after the time of the document in question.

  • Is_Sense_Common

    Wow. I have been a bit frustrated with some of Sen. Rubio’s statements of late. I’ve really not been in his camp for the Veep role. When I saw this video here, I was doubtful but Scoop’s enthusiastic review made me decide to give it a listen, never dreaming I’d sit here for >20 minutes. But it flew by & I’m so glad I did!

    This speech was inspiring and challenging and truly just a breath of fresh air! Beautifully written and presented, Sen. Rubio has completely impressed me. I am very encouraged.

    This weekend was certainly an uplifting one for Conservative politics, between all the awesome Right Online presenters and now this! Almost makes me want to just sit and bask in the glow of hope, which I have been short on for awhile. BUT – we have work to do!

    • Nukeman60

      Looks like Romney has a tough decision when he gets to Tampa. I was leaning toward the idea that he was picking Portman, as VP, to garner Ohio, but now with this immigration thing, he may be leaning back toward Rubio to help him here in Florida and other states that have large Latino populations (Colorado, Nevada, etc). Tough call for any middle-of-the-roader, no matter who you are.

      • Is_Sense_Common

        Duncan Hunter might be an interesting choice from Colorado. And, there’s no doubt about his eligibility!

        • Nukeman60

          Heh, I love your response about eligibilty. I see why Scoop last night said he was ‘tired’. It was hashed out all over the place till the late hours. I think some of the founding fathers even joined in. lol

          As to VP choice, I’m not familiar enough with Duncan Hunter. I’ve always thought that Romney would go with Rubio (for the Latino vote), but then he desperately needs Ohio (Portman). Other possibilities are Christie, Daniels, or McDonnell. You never know which way he’s going.

          • Is_Sense_Common

            Yes, I read the in-depth discussion about “Natural Born” Citizens. As a big-picture kind of person, it’s hard to get mired down in the details, but I’m glad that someone with more patience and knowledge than me can break it down. It sounds like Rubio is not eligible based on the timing of his parents’ citizenship, which really is a bummer. I may not agree with him on everything, but I do think he could be a force to be reckoned with on the Conservative side of the political line. Regardless, after reading all the comments back & forth, I agreed with Scoop – I was tired. 😉

            Edit: Thx for the article. They all make me yawn.

            • Nukeman60

              I actually think he’ll make a bigger impact in Congress than as a VP anyway, so we’ll see what happens down the road. I agree with you on the yawners, but I believe Romney wants a yawner by his side. Go fiqure.

        • Patriot077

          Hunter is actually from So. California. One of a few very good men from that state. I think he’s the only one who has attempted to do anything at all about the Central Valley water shut-off. I like him.

          Something on RedState about Marco Rubio that really concerned me: ” Likewise, Marco Rubio helped round up votes to get Mari Carmen Aponte confirmed as ambassador to El Salvador. Ms. Aponte dated a Cuban spy for 20 years, was a director of La Raza, and she has incensed Catholics in El Salvador with her political activism in support of gay rights.” LaRaza, ya gotta be kiddin’ us, Rubio!!!

          • Is_Sense_Common

            Thanks for the correction! Sorry about that. I always thought he was from CO. better get my eyes checked.

  • Dave B

    Sorry, I simply do not agree, that “without faith we have no freedom”. I don’t believe that for an instant.

    I do not believe in God and never will. I have every right to not believe in God.

    The sooner we have a separation of faith and state, the sooner we can get serious about liberty and freedom for ALL, which includes those that do not live their lives guided by faith.

    • I certainly would not want my country guided by Islam that’s for sure.

      • Dave B

        Indeed lucy, Islamic states believe they are guided by their faith as well, and we can see how well that’s turning out for everybody.

    • Patriot077

      Just curious where natural rights come from to someone who doesn’t believe in God or a creator.

      I think everyone should enjoy the freedom of religion and worship – or not – but I happen to appreciate public servants of strong faith and moral character who actually bring some honor to their decision making. fwiw

  • Rubio is a very nice representative of the conservative movement. He’s a smart man and a natural talent when it comes to public speaking. He is destined to do great things including being Governor of Florida.

    Right now, I think he needs to stay in the Senate because we need him there. He does not need to waste his time being a VP for Romney. It is much more important for him to be in the Senate where he can make a positive difference.

  • Don

    You can bet that if there is the slightest hint concerning Marco Rubio’s birth certificate being quesioned, the left and the mainstream media will come after him like a pack of crazed dogs. They will make the birthers look like shy kindergarten kids.

  • Impressive man and great speaker. He WILL be president of the United States one day and he IS another Ronald Reagan. Count on it. My favorite part was at about 11:40. Spot on. My favorite line was, “There is no reason why the 21st century can’t be an American century as well.” We will have to do our bit by getting Romney elected in November. Then maybe, just maybe, at least we’ll be on the right path to making this our century again.

  • WordsFailMe

    Like a golden glove kid, with a pretty good right, who’s moved up to pro, Rubio “telegraphed” his punch and got caught with a blind side left delivered by the black guy.

    Latin fighters just can’t stand up to natural born American black fighters. We see that all the time.

  • nibblesyble

    It was a very well delivered speech.

  • anneinarkansas

    Marco Rubio must the the VP candidate!!!!

  • freenca

    Thank you right scoop. Watching Marco Rubio speak in this vein is like seeing the strong beam of guiding light from a lighthouse shining upon the storm tossed waves in these turbulent times. His focus on the real issues confronting all of us today are so encouraging and inspiring.

  • B-Funk

    The only way I can vote for Romney without a gag reflex is if he picks a guy like this for Veep

  • kssturgis62

    Yes Rubio speaks well like all slick Politicians do. Rubio is a 1st Term Senator, Just like Obama, and all of suddenly Like Scott Brown he is a Star, a god among men. He is praised, and people like to tout how hot his wife is. sounds familiar to Scott Brown and his daughter, especially the one on American Idol.

    IT is amazing to me how people put POLITICIANS on Pedestals, and they say they don’t listen to the Media and What they have to say but they do, and they are influenced.

    Marco Rubio, was caught taking Illegal Campaign contributions and had to pay it back.
    Marco Rubio stated that using the Credit Card was bad and he shouldn’t have done it.
    Marco Rubio Gutted 31 Immigration Bills in Florida.
    Marco Rubio is working a Dream Act right now in the Senate, although a bill has not come forward, he wanted it ready to be passed by the fall. Cuban Illegals, and Mexican Illegals are very mad at him for not getting it done sooner.

    I don’t care if his wife is good looking. I don’t care that he comes from Cuba, I dont’ care that he is hispanic and he has nice hair. I am tired of hearing WE MUST WIN THE HISPANIC VOTE –

    I care if he loves my country and the Constitution. Now by the way he speaks okay yes he does. Then why does he vote against it?

    why did he vote for the Patriot Act, CISPA, NDAA, and Why hasn’t he done anything to hold Obama accountable for his crimes, and we know he has committed many.

    You see it is called Research, and the Biggest Strike against Rubio is the FACT that NEITHER OF HIS PARENTS WERE AMERICAN CITIZENS BEFORE HE WAS BORN !!


    YOU SEE people are truly influenced with a great speech, or slick hair, a hot wife and what the media says. People really don’t research like they say they do.

    I will not vote for Mitt Romney if Rubio is on that ticket. But I will spend lots of time yelling I told you so. Marco Rubio is NOT QUALIFIED TO BE VP AND IT TAKES OBAMA’S QUALIFICATIONS OFF THE TABLE and if you vote for RUBIO you never really loved this country and what it stood for.

    check his votes in Florida, do the digging it is all available. Not hard to find out. I did.

  • Mitt..Please! pick Florida’s dynamic duo of senator Marco Rubio as your VP now!!!. Congressman Allen West as your Secretary of Defense, and bring back Conde Rice as your Secretary of State. You can’t loose w/this triumvirate.

  • MrLTavern

    Sorry I missed this post and the babble that went with it.  You just don’t get do you.  Just about anyone can say the things that you want to hear and say them in a nice way and go an do the opposite once they get into office.   We learned this from Obama. Rubio is no different.  And he’s demonstrated that he’s capable of doing that.  Rubio was elected in 2010 and seemed very promising.  He seemed and spoke like a person who would go to Washington and do the people’s business.  Yet, he ended up being a tool for the washington establishment.  With the stink of amnesty all over him, he’s singled himself out as one of the biggest traitors to America.  In his campaign to win Senate, he positioned himself as anti amnesty.  Pro amnesty was Crist’s position.  He even took the anti amnesty position in the debates.  Look at Rubio now.  Rubio has gone to Washington and by aligning himself to McCain/Schumer’s bill to allow 11-15 million illegal immigrants to be rewarded for breaking the law.  Illegal immigration effects our country in negative ways both economically and socially.  With the economy in the shape that it is now, there is no reason that this idiotic bill should even be considered.  It will also effect the republican party, which is the only opposition to the Democrats right now, and possibly make them a minority party for a very long time and also create an under class in America that will keep voting for big government.  Obama has 4 known scandals on him right now and idiots like McCain, Rubio, Ryan, Boehner think its wise to hand the president a victory.  So while your comments to this video are emotionally driven and well meaning, they aren’t intelligent or well thought out.  Frankly, the commentary along with this video proves that the owner of this influential site possibly has his head up his a**.