The question of his eligibility is not the only reason for American patriots to be very wary of Marco Rubio.
Rubio gives me the very strong impression that the GOP’s latest Hispanic heartthrob ultimately is just as much a Hispanic special-pleader as almost every other Hispanic politician in the United States, and an active foe of American patriots who take our National Question seriously.
Recent Marco Rubio actions demonstrate that he is not someone conservative Americans can trust.
VDARE.com readers may recall that William Jefferson Clinton, during his less-than-illustrious tenure in the White House, tried to post a Puerto Rican lady of distinctly Leftist leanings, Mari Carmen Aponte, to Santo Domingo, that once-beautiful Spanish Colonial capital founded in 1496 by Bartholomew Columbus—younger brother of the Admiral of the Ocean Sea himself—as U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic.
Even without considering the doubtful wisdom of inviting conflicts of interest and risking divided loyalties by sending a Latin American from the next island over to represent the United States on Hispaniola, Aponte's appointment died in the Senate when she was unable or unwilling to come clean about the years she had spent dating a Communist Cuban spy in the United States, one Roberto Tamayo. So far, so good.
Well, if Aponte was too far left for Clinton's administration in the end, she's definitely not too far left for Barack Hussein Obama's administration, which has been trying since 2009 to post her to San Salvador as U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador.
Again, let's pass over the similar dubious intelligence shown by sending a leftist Latin American to represent America in a Latin American country with which the United States has a sensitive and tendentious relationship. (Does anyone remember MS-13 and the Mara Salvatrucha and how they enrich America with their illegal presence here? We may be sure Ambassador Aponte will do nothing to expedite their repatriation to El Salvador.) Finally Aponte has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, with a depressing degree of Republican support.
Senator Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) had kept Aponte's nomination on hold because of Aponte's documented involvement with Cuban agents of espionage in the United States – as reasonable prudence would dictate. Then up stepped Marco Rubio to break the deadlock. To be fair, lack of concern about U.S. national security does not seem to have factored into Rubio’s calculations; it looks like he just wanted to pander to Puerto Ricans living in Florida. It is a bit surprising, though, that a supposedly conservative Cuban-American is so cavalier about Cuban Communist espionage and those associated with it. The contrast between Rubio and DeMint is striking.
Then on Friday, June 15, 2012, a date that should live in infamy, Barack Hussein Obama, acting as Pharaoh of the Americas, not as a constitutionally restrained President of the United States, granted amnesty by Pharaonic Phiat (“So let it be written; so let it be done”) to an undeterminable number of illegal aliens. Effectively Pharaobama decreed the nightmare of a DREAM Act into law, even though the Congress of the United States three times has refused to enact it. There are many reasons why Obama would do this, some obvious, some not. One open question is why he would engage in this constitutionally risky machination as what may well be a very close presidential election looms. Obama plainly assumes the Republicans in Congress will not do their constitutional duty and introduce articles of impeachment for this latest gross abuse of his office, the most flagrant in a growing series of unconstitutional outrages. That's certainly a valid assumption, unfortunately.
But my focus is not on Obama. It is, again, on the Republican Party's latest Great Hispanic Hope, Marco Rubio. Alexandra Starr, writing approvingly in The Atlantic, credits Rubio's outspoken stance in favor of the DREAM Act and, if truth be told, much broader amnesties down the line with making it possible for Obama to impose an amnesty on the American people unilaterally, unconstitutionally and in open defiance of Congress'
[I]f political leadership is defined as taking a risk to advance the policy conversation, then what Rubio did [propose a revised DREAM Act in the Senate] does qualify. Because the fact is, without Rubio's proposal, it's unlikely the administration would have taken the risk of circumventing the U.S. Congress to make it possible for possibly a million residents to live and work here legally. That's because Rubio's plan changed the way the Obama campaign could frame the debate on immigration. There has been mounting frustration in the Latino community over the administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform while simultaneously presiding over a historically high number of deportations. An obvious rebuttal to this criticism was “we may not have delivered, but the Republicans are even worse” — an argument Romney lent credence to when he advocated “self-deportation” and announced he would veto the DREAM Act as president.
Rubio's contribution to the DREAM Act debate made it harder to allege the GOP was the “do nothing” party on immigration reform. The senator had been spreading the word in the media that the administration was telling DREAM Act advocates to refrain from working with him on his effort. It put pressure on the administration to shore up its credentials with Latinos, a voting block [sic] that could decide whether Colorado, Florida, and Nevada end up in the Red or Blue column this fall. With its announcement Friday, the administration did just that.
So, in effect, the Cuban youth so many in the Republican Party, including badly misled Tea Party activists, are touting as the best man Mitt Romney could pick as his running mate is not only an active agent of Latin American irredentism in America, he is effectively an advance man for the Democratic president Romney is preparing to run against! If the Republican Party should overlook Rubio's constitutional ineligibility for the vice-presidency and presidency as well as his DREAM Act/amnesty antics and nominate him anyway, what excuse will patriots have not to know that the Republican Party is as hostile to Americans on the National Question as is the Democratic Party? The only difference is that the Democrats are a little less dishonest about it.
I have reached a depressing conclusion about Hispanic politicians in America, including the few Republican ones: with America in such close proximity to Latin America, almost none of them can be counted on to be Americans first. Rather they default to being ethnic special pleaders for their own groups.
I had thought this might not be true of Marco Rubio, but with his support of the DREAM Act and his unwarranted support of a leftist fellow-Hispanic against the interests of his party and the country that gave his family refuge, clearly he too runs to type. I'm afraid it also makes me very skeptical that Rubio’s fellow Cuban-American Ted Cruz, now being touted as the savior of conservatism in Texas, will be any different—despite neoconnish vaporings about how rock-solid he is.
Why should the GOP nominate someone for VP who would be ineligible to succeed to the presidency should the need arise? Also, after rightly lambasting the Democrats for years for foisting the laughably under-qualified Obama on America, to select the similarly inexperienced Rubio would smack of blatant pandering to Hispanics, a group most unlikely to thank the GOP with its votes in any event. (Most Americans fail to distinguish between them, but to Latin Americans the differences between Mexicans and Central Americans—the overwhelming majority of Latin Americans now in the United States—on the one hand, and Caribbean Latin Americans—the Cuban Rubio among them—on the other, are obvious. And those two varieties of Latin American are not exactly full of love for each other. Picking a Cuban would accomplish precisely nothing for Republicans among Mexicans, by far the largest group of Latin Americans up here.)
The GOP needs to concentrate on turning out working-class and middle-class white voters in large numbers: the key to Ronald Reagan's two landslides. Those voters want economic issues effectively addressed, and most understand—it's what they always tell pollsters when anyone bothers to ask—that immigration, legal as well as illegal, is a major contributor to their economic woes.
For the already-suspect Romney to pick the DREAM Act-pushing Rubio might be all it takes to keep a lot of those people at home.
The GOP should have learned from the second President Bush's two rejected attempts to pass illegal alien amnesties that to be an amnesty advocate is a sure loser nationally for Republicans. Probably even John McCain realizes that by now.