Pidgeon Responds to Beck’s “Birther” Comments

by Phil on 01/6/2010

To provide full context for this story, WorldNetDaily reported yesterday that radio host and Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck mocked so-called “birthers” and suggested that Mr. Obama is using the eligibility issue to his benefit:

“There’s always games being played behind the scenes at a talk radio show,” Beck said. “Rush has always called them seminar callers. But instead of being coy with the seminar callers or with you, I’m just going to expose the game that is going on. Today there is a concerted effort on all radio stations to get birthers on the air.”

“I have to tell you, are you working for the Barack Obama administration?” Beck scoffed. “I mean, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”

The ongoing dialogue then spun off into ridicule as Beck caricatured those who question the sitting president’s eligibility with straw-man arguments reminiscent of jibes made by Obama’s apologists in other news outlets.

Beck defined birthers as people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or other foreign country, was raised as a Manchurian candidate and somehow brainwashed Hillary Clinton into not exposing his fraud. According to Beck’s running joke, birthers believe someone – maybe Obama’s KGB “control” – preemptively placed Obama’s birth announcement in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers with a “roadmap” of getting an African man into office.

As for Obama producing a long-form birth certificate to actually prove his place of birth, Beck questioned, “Why do that when these people ['birthers'] are so discrediting themselves?”

WND goes on regarding the actual questions concerning the eligibility issue, taking note that Mr. Obama could have, in fact, been born in Hawaii (for all anyone knows), but would still have been, at birth, a British subject.

Regardless, Mr. Beck is clearly in the minority in his negative characterizations of those of us who question Mr. Obama’s bona fides. Numerous high-profile individuals have specifically regarded the issue as legitimate and worthwhile, including the following list of personalities:

However, the strongest retort, to date, has come from attorney Stephen Pidgeon, one of a number of lawyers who pushed the eligibility issue in the Judiciary and who has currently teamed up with attorney Leo Donofrio in representing Chrysler dealers regarding the car company’s bankruptcy proceedings and the quo warranto statute.

In a letter that is making its rounds across the blogosphere, Mr. Pidgeon blasted Mr. Beck for his “ill-informed” stance (h/t AmericanGrandJury):

Dear Mr. Beck:

You are ill-informed on the “birther” issue. Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native. This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments. The issue is very simple, and very obvious. Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.

Let’s see you deal with this one. There is nothing “nutty” about it, and it doesn’t depend on whether his maternal grandmother tried to cover up a foreign birth in Hawaii by placing newspaper notices. It is as plain as your face. BHO is a foreign national first, and an American secondarily, if at all. That is why he thinks there are 57 states; why he doesn’t understand the constitution; why he wants to give us Britain’s health care system (it’s all in the teeth, don’t you know); why he thinks Interpol should have greater authority in the US than US law enforcement; etc. He is a British subject and has no business holding the office of POTUS.

If you think you can overlook this constitutional crisis as not part of the Rubicon, you are mistaken. One constitutional overlook breeds another and the next thing you know, the financial industry is nationalized, the auto industry is nationalized, the health care industry is about to be nationalized, and the energy industry will soon be nationalized.

Ultimately, it is all going to be okay, because socialism only lasts until other people’s money (OPM) runs out, and binge spender BHO has spent all the money we have and all the money we will ever have for the next several generations. He spent all of this before he got his socialist healthcare on the table. He and his wife have partied like Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) since taking office, while he has busied himself with overthrowing the constitutional republic, establishing a new Islamic empire worldwide, disarming and crippling America, and unilaterally dividing Israel and Jerusalem. The only budget constraint for Obama is ink and paper (and he is working his way around that) and his foreign policy advisor appears to be “mirror, mirror on the wall”. He has bankrupted the nation, which the sleeping Oprah watchers are now discovering for the very first time. The reality of the bankruptcy will hit home with gusto in 2010. Not only will we suffer with 30% unemployment, a complete collapse of real estate, and a complete collapse of the dollar, we will also suffer the slings and arrows of dramatic military defeats, as we let this foreigner steer the ship of state. Most Americans have no idea how bad it is going to get.

As for Obama: he will be one of history’s most reviled figures – on a par with Nero – as a fool who couldn’t even understand that when he denigrated the United States, he was destroying the very state upon which his safety and his legacy depended. He will suffer dramatic defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq – it will not be like Viet Nam, and his name will be tarred with it. It will be more like the disastrous defeat of Xerxes at Salamis, or the Ottomans at Sisek, or the Moors at Tours; a game changing defeat that will forever cement the destiny of the republic known as the United States of America. Obama will join the other names in history who suffered cataclysmic losses in the lands of Magog.

His legacy? A communist, collectivist fool, brainwashed by red diaper doper babies haunting the halls of ivy league academia whose agenda was to bring back the failed Bolshevik revolution worldwide, who brought his fully bloomed ignorance to power illegally in the US because of the needs of his narcissistic ego, whose illegitimacy caused the US to go bankrupt and to suffer its worst military setbacks in the history of the nation in just a few short months. History will marvel at the foolishness of Americans, and historians will wonder how we as a people could have allowed this to happen. Then, of course, historians will ultimately conclude that the demise of the greatest nation the world had ever known happened because the watchdogs whose duty it was to warn Americans of such possibilities – the so-called news media – conspired with foreign powers and global financial criminals to destroy America from the inside, as a result of their cowardice, malevolence and silence.

Glen Beck: a media persona who simply could not bring himself to utter the truth about Obama – that he is a usurper, holding the presidency illegally and unconstitutionally, because he is without a legal birthright. Let us never forget who shirked their duty to tell the truth in these last hours, and let us not allow history to forget.

STEPHEN PIDGEON

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy WND

There are 85 comments in this article:

  1. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    I’m not sure what’s happening, but my last post hasn’t shown up.

  2. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    This is as far as I got reading Pidgeon’s letter:

    Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.

    I reviewed the transcripts of all the debates several months ago when this rumor came up, but I’ve been unable to find them again.

    Here’s the video of all three of the four debates. I think the filter is blocking my post if I post four links, but I have the fourth as well.

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/184058-1

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/183783-1

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/184143-1

    In none of them is the phrase “natural born citizen said,” nor is there anything close to an admission of the sort Pidgeon alleges. If somebody is willing to make such an easily debunked allegation right upfront, why should I take the time to read anything else he says, much less believe any of it? Pidgeon is either telling a lie or extremely intellectually lazy. Either way, he’s quite the typical birther.

  3. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    This is as far as I got reading Pidgeon’s letter:

    Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.

    I also reviewed the transcripts of all the debates several months ago when this rumor came up, but I’ve been unable to find them again.

    However, the video of all four debates are available on c-span. I’ve tried posting them, but none of the posts have gone through. I could post them again later though.

    In none of them is the phrase “natural born citizen said,” nor is there anything close to an admission of the sort Pidgeon alleges. If somebody is willing to make such an easily debunked allegation right upfront, why should I take the time to read anything else he says, much less believe any of it? Pidgeon is either telling a lie or extremely intellectually lazy. Either way, he’s quite the typical birther.

  4. 01/6/2010Poppet says:

    It seems to be that Glenn Beck has been hindered to “speak” his
    mind.
    It’s for sure that Beck has been a thorn to the Obama administration on many issues, however he backs off on the crucial
    issue of Obama’s “eligibility”.

    Beck and “ALL” the other media commentators are obviously being controlled or threatened by the Media Magnates. There is no doubt
    that they have worked out some sort of huge financial gain.
    (gee, where did all that TARP money go?)

    I’m sure they all have “back up” plans when the truth finally
    comes out. Maybe they will realize that all financial gains will be
    taken back when they are exposed or included in conspiracy charges.

    Somewhere along the line a “disgruntled” co-conspirator will come
    out and spill the beans……..

  5. 01/6/2010bystander says:

    Poppet your argument makes no sense. If Glenn beck has been a thorn in Obama’s side for so many issues, why doesn’t Obama use whatever he is threatening Beck with to shut him up on important issues that Obama is actually concerned with? When Beck laughs at you he means it – if he wanted to let you know somehow that he is a birther that is being silenced, he would strike a completely different tone. Face it – he thinks birthers are loons and has said so many times.

  6. 01/6/2010Pandasta says:

    qwertyman . . . John Charlton at Post & Email (thepostemail.com), posted interesting information concerning the Keyes vs Obama 2004 debates during the month of October 2009. It appears that Google and others are scrubbing and editing evidence.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/?s=Obama+Keyes+2004

    Perhaps this BHO slip of the tongue is so “radioactive” its been deemed too sensitive for public knowledge and dissemination by the Main Stream Media. Here we go again, the MSM looking out for our best interest, and keeping us in the dark.

    BHO knows he is not a Natural Born Citizen according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. BHO has knowingly, purposefully, and willfully forced upon the United States of America a constitutional crisis, whose outcome we are about to witness first hand. Historical for certain. Are we going to like the outcome . . . I think not.

    “These are the times that try men’s souls” –Thomas Paine, December 1776.

    –RWL 01-06-2010 @ 02:10 PST

  7. 01/6/2010WeimMom says:

    As long as Soros, SEIU, etc is running the show, fear will mandate the media blackout. Has Beck and his family been threatened??? He had stated on his show that was the case and we do NOT want him and/or his family harmed.

    It will be up to us, “We The People” to do the dirty work!

    Interview revealing allegations of threats to silence the media about Obama’s Ineligibility

    http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/01/02/interview-revealing-allegations-of-threats-to-silence-the-media-about-obamas-ineligibility.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsChart

  8. 01/6/2010Christinewjc says:

    Qwertyman –

    From what I have heard, the admission of Obama not being a natural born citizen was done off stage and apparently heard by several individuals who were present, so it would not have been in the c-span debate tapes.

    Now be an honest person yourself and go back to read the rest of Mr. Pidgeon’s letter. You missed the best parts.

  9. 01/6/2010Christinewjc says:

    The following is just my opinion, but from what I can recall about the rare moments that Beck has mentioned the BC issue on his radio show in the past, his reasoning has more to do with the fear of unrest in the nation due to overturning the votes of the majority of the people and what would transpire to “fix the mess” (e.g. Joe Biden becomes president? VERY scary thought) yada, yada, yada. His libertarian views shine through with this issue. Apparently, he doesn’t see that the fraud of Obama claiming he was qualified, and the Dem party being complicit in such deceit – isn’t the best way to defeat Obama’s POLICIES. Beck is more concerned with preventing, and/or overturning (when necessary) the terrible Marxist POLICIES Obama is shoving down the throats of Americans; rather than booting out the Marxist usurper through the COLB issue.

    Still, what surprises me today is that he went so far as to mock the “birthers.” He hadn’t done that in the past. Therefore, I am wondering what his motivation is? Perhaps he was just being sarcastic? Maybe he thinks that it’s a lost cause and therefore, wants to discourage people from pursuing it? I doubt that would work. He may have helped inspire people to join the 9.12 Project and the TEA Party movement, but he’s not going to get people to give up on the eligibility issue. It is way too important!

  10. 01/6/2010Black Lion says:

    Christinewjc says:
    January 6, 2010 at 7:43 am
    Qwertyman –

    From what I have heard, the admission of Obama not being a natural born citizen was done off stage and apparently heard by several individuals who were present, so it would not have been in the c-span debate tapes.

    Now be an honest person yourself and go back to read the rest of Mr. Pidgeon’s letter. You missed the best parts.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Why would any honest person read Pidgeon’s letter? It is filled with inaccuracies….

    First of all the rumor started from a posting on Orly’s site that quickly spread as an e-mail through the blogosphere:

    “Also, Somebody from Chicago just contacted her and stated that during the Senatorial campaign there was a debate between Barack Obama and Dr. Keyes. This debate was videotaped. During the debate Dr. Keyes has stated :”You are not even a Natural born citizen” to which Barack Obama replied: “That’s OK, I am not running for president, I am only running for Senate.”

    Q is correct. That so called exchange between Obama and Keyes never happened. Use some common sense. Don’t you think that if it had and Keyes had the proof, he would have used it as supporting evidence in one if his lawsuits? There has been no documented proof that the exchange ever happened. All you have is some sort of internet rumor that this happened. Not one person that was at the debate or involved has come forward to confirm the story. People have reviewed all the transcripts of each debate and could not find the exchange anywhere. Typical birther evidence. Long on rumor and short on supporting admissible evidence.

  11. 01/6/2010Yephora says:

    Black Lion, what about the claims in Pidgeon’s first paragraph before mention of Alan Keyes? The part which reads:

    Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native. This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments.

    Can you refute that?

  12. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    From what I have heard, the admission of Obama not being a natural born citizen was done off stage and apparently heard by several individuals who were present, so it would not have been in the c-span debate tapes.

    Now be an honest person yourself and go back to read the rest of Mr. Pidgeon’s letter. You missed the best parts.

    Please provide some support to back your assertion that this “admission” was done off stage.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/15/obama-concedes-hes-not-a-nbc-in-obama-vs-keyes-2004-debate/

    At one point in the second debate, Keyes, accused Obama saying, “You are not even a natural born citizen!”

    To which Obama immediately replied, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency.”

    At the end of the airing of the second debate, the C-Span host noted, as he read from a single sheet of paper, placed before him, that the Obama Campaign had contacted them and requested them to point out to their viewers that Obama’s response here should not be understood as a denial that he is a natural born citizen, only that Keyes’ accusation had nothing to do with the qualifications of office of a U.S. Senator.

    I distinctly remember my dismay at Obama’s response, at that time, concerned why he called the office he was running for “Illinois” senator, but did not call the U.S. Presidency with any distinctive adjective.

    I subsequently spoke with Alan Keyes, one evening, by phone, when he appeared on Plains Radio:, in January, I think. I asked him about this exchange; he said he did not remember it; but he did not deny it took place.

    Also note that even if Pidgeon is meaning that he thinks it happened off stage, he is choosing his words very poorly. Pidgeon says it was during a debate, not some quiet discussion afterwards. And Keyes himself, the guy who was supposed to have started that whole thing off, has said that the entire thing never happened. You have been lied to, and apparently don’t bother to check facts yourself.

    Black Lion, what about the claims in Pidgeon’s first paragraph before mention of Alan Keyes?

    Pidgeon alleges that if you have citizenship in any other country, you are not a natural born citizen. This theory would represent one of the gravest breaches of American sovereignty in our history. He is instantaneously saying that every Jew in America is ineligible for the presidency, as they also have Israeli citizenship. Third generation Americans whose grandparents immigrated from Italy are also ineligible because of Italian laws. Under Pidgeon’s argument, if Hugo Chavez granted Venezuelan citizenship to all those born on US soil, then nobody born on US soil would be a natural born citizen again, since they would also be subjects of a foreign government.

    But here’s the main point. Pidgeon told a BLATANT LIE in the first paragraph. He is either lying to you or somebody who does not check very basic facts. Either way, is that the mark of somebody that deserves your attention?

  13. 01/6/2010Ray McCabe says:

    Listen, Pidgeon shouldn’t have said Obama said it in a debate. It was off stage either before the debate or during a break. C-Span originally had the tape of everything, not just the debate, but of everything before the debate, during the breaks, etc. They showed that version once. It has not-surprisingly been deleted from the C-Span archives. But none of this matters. He is NOT a NBC! He was not “sired” buy 2 US citizens. Period. Doesn’t matter if he was born on US soil or not. Forget the birth cert. Who cares? Even if he was born in Hawaii, he was a duel citizen at birth, and therefor not a NBC, and not eligible for POTUS. Period. Stop arguing semantics like he said this and what about that. He was a self – proclaimed – duel – citizen – at – his – birth. End of story.

  14. 01/6/2010Black Lion says:

    Yephora says:
    January 6, 2010 at 9:39 am
    Black Lion, what about the claims in Pidgeon’s first paragraph before mention of Alan Keyes? The part which reads:

    Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native. This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments.

    Can you refute that?

    ___________________________________________________________________
    Yes, easily. Can you show me where in the US Constitution that it states that “the office is not available to subjects of other governments”? Can you show us where in the Constitution or other US law where it states that US citizenship is predicated on the laws of other countries? Can you show us in the Constitution or other relevant law where it states that a person born in the US to an American is ineligible to be President?

    Pidgeon can’t because there are no such laws. President Obama was born in the US. No admissible evidence has been produced that suggests otherwise. So like Q said Pidgeon is incorrect in his first paragraph, as well as the rest of his letter.

  15. 01/6/2010John says:

    Wow! Obama Conspiracy Theories is actually helping us! They think it is a waste of time. I don’t believe it is if EVERYONE starts doing it and we need to go VIRAL with the message:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/marked-bills/

    Phil,

    It would be of great help if you made posting about this. It would certainly get people to do it.

  16. 01/6/2010Christinewjc says:

    THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION
    At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

    “FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

    ‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

    Read that last line again.

    “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

    That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. He has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

    And this leads to the relevant question:

    HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

    A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States.

    Hat Tip: Natural Born Citizen blog

    In a previous post about the Chrysler lawsuit, I found the back and forth between Qwertyman and Linda quite interesting. The following comment by Linda caught my attention:

    Linda says:
    December 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
    qwertyman says: Quote mining is not nice.

    I did not ‘quote mine’ as you charge me to have, what I did was quote the Edw. III statute that defined what a naturtal born subject was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    Blackstone himself concurred with this definition in his Commentaries.

    Further more, I gave the links for all readers to research for themselves and if anyone is ‘quote mining’ it is you. It is a long and exhastive commentary, as well are the other 2 links that it references to and they all come to the same conclusion,

    Native does not equal natural born and as Kent put it, Natives are:

    artificial persons created by law

    Thus there can be nothing natural about a native born person’s citizenship, they aquire it through naturalization under US laws if they so desire.

    This agrees with The Obama File’s archives that recognize the fact that there are actually three kinds of U.S. citizenship – natural born citizen (required for POTUS), native born citizen, and naturalized citizen.

    Consider this. If Obama was so sure that “native born citizen” is considered to be, by Constitutional law, the same as “natural born citizen” (required for POTUS), then why on earth would he spend 1.5 million dollars hiding his COLB and other bona fide documents (which would most likely prove that he attended college in the U.S. as a foreign exchange student)?

    Why all the secrecy?

    Answer: he is hiding something – something BIG! Just like the Dems are hiding what’s in the health care bill. C-span requested recording the discussions and they got a big fat NO. Isn’t this highly disturbing?

    The Chrysler plaintiffs case (IMO) has the best chance of succeeding in the courts. God speed Mr. Pidgeon and Mr. Donofrio!

    The Obama File’s conclusion agrees with the following essay explanation found at The Birthers.org website as to why the Founders placed the requirement of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution SPECIFICALLY for the Office of POTUS [Note: Go to The Birthers.org site for links to the Naturalization Acts within the text]:

    Quote:

    Article II, Section 1

    The founders of our Nation wanted a nation for everyone, where ones status of birth would not limit their ability to succeed in almost any task that they could set their hearts and minds too. Yet, they had put pen to paper to set aside only one aspiration from all citizens and to reserve that for a class of citizens whose members are called “a natural born citizen,” the office of the President of the United States of America.

    Article II, Section 1

    “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    There are some interesting phrases here that all have significance to the mindset of the Founding Fathers. The key phrase here is, “a natural born citizen,” as opposed to “a native born citizen,” “naturalized” or even “a citizen.” Before we look at what “a natural born citizen” is, let’s look at the other phrases, so the clear meaning of a Natural Born Citizen becomes clear.

    Looking at the text of the Constitution there was a small window of opportunity for a class of citizens, who were just simply “a citizen” to become the President. This Grandfather clause expired with the death of the last citizen born before June 22, 1788.

    or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,

    Considering that all of the Founding Fathers were at least on July 4, 1776, British subjects, they needed to include themselves as possible Presidential candidates. These “original citizen” Presidents included, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and the last “original citizen” President was William Henry Harrison.

    If they had not included themselves, then the age requirement included in the qualifications for President would mean that America would have to wait until July 4, 1811 for the first “natural born citizen” to come of age.

    neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years,

    Yet, they were not so liberal in just allowing any former British subjects to be President. Note that also the qualifications for President is included a duration of residency.

    and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    To understand why they choose 14 years, is to start to understand why they also penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” Our Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 and if we subtract 14 years we come to September 17, 1773. Nothing significant happened on this date, but it creates a state where our first “original citizen Presidents” needed to be physically present at the start of and during the War of Independence, unless like Franklin they were overseas engaged in the business of the United States. This is born out in the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America (July 7, 1798), and this is also in many of the debates on ratification.

    Because as stated there were no “natural born citizens” ready to be President, the age and duration of residency also created another significant point. Thirty-five minus 14 is also 21, the “age of majority.” This means that these “original citizen” Presidents would have needed to make a conscience adult decision to be an American and would have earned the right to be President, by willingly risking their lives simply by being present in the thirteen States, while this Nation fought for its independence.

    Yes, there is a small window of opportunity, when someone could have come to America and became President, without having risked their live in a War of Independence. This short period was from February 4, 1783 when Britain formally declared an end to the War of Independence until September 17, 1787. Our Founding Fathers were men of the highest principles and integrity, they said what they meant and meant what they said. In the same Constitution, that holds the qualifications for President, is written Article 1, Section 9, these same men wrote,

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    They were not going to treat this 1783 to 1789 class of “immigrant citizens” guilty of being unfaithful to America by passing a law saying so. A Bill of Attainder is a law that makes a group of citizens guilty of a crime without the benefit of a trial. Ex post facto law is a law passed after the fact to make something illegal or legal, at the time it happened. They chose instead to set a date, September 17, 1787 that allowed anyone who was an original citizen on that date regardless of place of birth to be President. If you became a citizen on September 18, 1787, it would have been too late for you to qualify to be President of the United States of America without being a natural born citizen.

    Returning to the phrase “a natural born citizen,” you can now see that the Founding Fathers made a conscience effort to insure that the office of the President of the United States of America would have been held by only those men who were loyal to the cause of the United States of America. They selected as criteria for themselves loyalty above all else. The President of the United States must be above all else loyal to this Nation, and the principles that it was established upon.

    As they pondered the Constitutional office of the President, they knew that one day their generation would pass away. Those men who proved their loyalty on the field of battle would eventually sleep under the field. This pool of men with proven loyalty to the Nation would literally die out one day. Sensing this, they knew that they could only trust the power of the office of President to a group of citizens who would have the best chance of being loyal to the country, those who only know America and only knew what it was like to be American.

    On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    The common sense of this was immediately and unanimously incorporated into our Constitution. It cannot be said that this was without debate, there were a few who initially thought that excluding naturalized citizens might limit the number of affluent people with money to come to and invest in the new country. This small minority was afraid that the rich would not immigrate if their opportunities were limited. The fact that there was debate is significant because it signifies that this provision was not slipped into the Constitution, in the late hours of the night.

    If they choose as a requirement for President for themselves, proven loyalty, and what they would choose for the next generation of Presidents would be “natural loyalty.” How they determined what natural loyalty is they looked toward nature. They did not need Congressional studies for a definition, as it was self-evident to them. A persons place in life comes from ones parents. This concept is found in nature, it is self-evident. Nature claims kinship, our most primitive and natural form of citizenship, from blood, while nations claim citizens from the soil, or their place of birth. The decided that the best way to protect the integrity of the office of President of the United States was a combination of the two.

    The next time the term “natural born” would be used by the first Congress. Chapter III, of the Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “a natural born citizen” was one whose parents were citizens of the United States, regardless of where they were born. They used the plural, and not singular. The majority membership of the first Congress was made up of both members from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. It is obvious that these men, who wrote the both the Constitution and first naturalization law seen that it was the parents who instilled a sense of belonging to their children. This sense of belonging would be deemed loyalty.

    The fact that they wanted parents, in the plural to be citizens is because they wanted to limit as much as possible any political and emotional attachment to the “old world.” They wanted neither the mother nor the father to influence “a natural born” candidate for President, with a sense of foreign allegiance. They made the requirements for “a natural born citizen” to be from parents who were either born in the United States or made a conscience decision to become “naturalized citizens” of the United States. They observed in the law of nature that a child follows the condition of their parents, and if the parents were split in their loyalties, the child would be split in loyalty to America.

    With the Naturalization Act of 1795, they amended the law that allowed a foreign-born child of American citizens to be called “natural born,” not because they believed they were wrong on the premise of the loyalty deriving from the condition of the parents. They were not, because they still granted “naturalized citizenship” at birth to these children. What they realized is that other nations were not following the law of nature, but were instituting feudal laws that were based on Roman law. These laws said, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, that any child born on the soil of the King, the King had the right to claim as a subject of the Crown, forever. Their intention was to insure that “a natural born citizen” would have only one natural loyalty, and could be legally claimed as a citizen of only one country.

    No one can deny that it was the intention of the Framers of the Constitution to protect the sanctity of the office of the President of the United States from foreign influence, either natural or legislated. They believed that the parents American citizenship, either natural or by choice would guard against the influence of foreign cultures. That birth within the United States of America by American citizens, made sure no other world power could ever make a claim for the allegiance of our President.

    At the end of the war of Independence, England wanted to give Americans dual citizenship. In correspondence between David Hartley an British negotiator for the Treaty of Paris, and Benjamin Franklin, in which Hartley writes, “Neither shall the independence of the United States be construed any further than as independence, absolute and unlimited, in matters of government, as well as commerce. Not into alienation, and therefore the subjects of his Britannic majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as natural born subjects, and enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the respective dominions and territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.” While some may have considered this a good thing, the Founding Fathers reject this “last minute” act of generosity for the Trojan horse it was, that tried to subvert our Nation into a nation of dual citizens, whose citizens were ultimately subjects subservient to the Crown.

    Article II, Section 1 is not about simply being born in the USA, it is about having only a complete and total loyalty to the United States of America, and no other. Any President who puts the interests of the United States of America second, has demonstrated that he is not “a natural born citizen” of this Nation, but is merely a puppet of worldly powers. Imperfect as some may believe, it is our legacy. A heritage paid for by the blood of patriots that is ours to either, guard and protect or to abandon for the always-changing temporary passions of the multitudes. /quote

  17. 01/6/2010Sue says:

    I seriously doubt if Glenn Beck really cares what Pidgeon says or thinks.

  18. 01/6/2010Black Lion says:

    In the article above it states:

    “Regardless, Mr. Beck is clearly in the minority in his negative characterizations of those of us who question Mr. Obama’s bona fides. Numerous high-profile individuals have specifically regarded the issue as legitimate and worthwhile, including the following list of personalities:”

    Rush Limbaugh (3 times)
    Sean Hannity
    Sarah Palin
    Elizabeth Cheney
    Lou Dobbs
    Steve Malzberg
    Lynn Samuels
    Camille Paglia
    Jonah Goldberg
    ____________________________________________________________________
    What is more interesting are the list of high profile people on the right that think the birth certificate issue is not legitimate or worthwhile….

    John McCain
    Glenn Beck
    Ann Coulter
    Lindsey Graham
    Bill Frist
    Bill O’Reilly
    Michelle Malkin
    Michael Medved
    Joe Scarborough
    David Horowitz
    John Avlon
    Andrew Walden

    “Many conservative media figures have dismissed and ridiculed the so-called “birther” claims as “conspiracy theories” that are “embarrassing and destructive” and are espoused by “crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters.”

    http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/200907220051

  19. 01/6/2010Sally Hill says:

    I appreciate Steve Pidgeon’s letter in the fact that it is straightforward and he doesn’t engage in Alinsky style attacks, as Beck and most liberals do when trying to debate the issue.

    I do question some of his points as perhaps not based on ‘facts'; however, the fact that he did not resort to name calling gives him great credence in my book.

    I’m just so tired of the division and name calling. We are all Americans – we are all on the same side. We may not all agree, but we are all in this together, we need to start acting like it.

  20. 01/6/2010Sue says:

    Christinewjc,

    Your very long comment is not factual. In fact, Donofrio is the origin of the nbc = two citizen parents and has nothing whatsoever to do with our Founding Fathers, the Constitution, Supreme Court precedents, etc. It is Donofrio’s opinion–nothing more. You have been badly misinformed.

  21. 01/6/2010Sue says:

    “I’m just so tired of the division and name calling. We are all Americans – we are all on the same side. We may not all agree, but we are all in this together, we need to start acting like it.”

    I agree 100%.

  22. 01/6/2010mom4liberty says:

    Really strange about Beck’s mocking and comments considering that he just a short time ago friended Dr. Orly Taitz on Facebook at the same time as did numerous FOX News personalities (excluding O’Reilly) and a good number of US congressmen and senators. Check it out for yourself. There is some type of gag order on FOX news concerning Obama’s illegitimacy to serve as POTUS, so many on FOX demonstrated their personal support for challenging his eligibility by collectively friending Taitz on Facebook.
    Maybe Beck has been hanging out too much with the scoffer O’Reilly or his reins have been shortened a bit by the influence of the Saudi prince who has part ownership in FOX (no Obama/Saudi connections allowed to be made.) We know a Saudi with terrorist ties financed Obama’s education (google the video admission by Percy Sutton on this & then google who this Saudi is.)
    As a facebook friend of Taitz, Beck surely knows all of this.

  23. 01/6/2010Christinewjc says:

    Sue –

    It appears that you neglected to read the entire post. You should. You might learn something.

    Sally Hill –

    You make a good point and plea:

    “I’m just so tired of the division and name calling. We are all Americans – we are all on the same side. We may not all agree, but we are all in this together, we need to start acting like it.”

    However, partisan politics will ALWAYS get in the way (unfortunately) of the previously enjoyed “we are all in this together, we need to start acting like it” attitude of Americanism that was vibrant and live in previous generations. Sadly, it appears to have died right along with millions from “The Greatest Generation.”

    Recall how harshly the liberal left insulted, mocked, berated, tried to injure, hated, reviled, cursed at, and blatantly LIED about President George W. Bush. At least some liberals (like those at the blog Hillbuzz) now regret such vile hatred being spewed at Bush.

    In the case of Obama, he had a huge 71% (?) approval rating when he was inaugurated. It is now pitifully low. Why? Because people now realize how many lies he told to get elected. Americans are seeing our beloved country ruined by this puppet usurper and his criminal cronies. This natural born citizen status controversy is very important. Our nation’s survival and security is at stake. We need to have our questions answered as to why Obama is hiding his COLB and other documents from WE THE PEOPLE.

  24. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    Really strange about Beck’s mocking and comments considering that he just a short time ago friended Dr. Orly Taitz on Facebook at the same time as did numerous FOX News personalities

    Any notable personality on facebook will accept a friendship request from anybody who requests to be their friend. It’s not something even thought about, as numerous GOP officials have said when asked about their friending Taitz.

    Listen, Pidgeon shouldn’t have said Obama said it in a debate. It was off stage either before the debate or during a break. C-Span originally had the tape of everything, not just the debate, but of everything before the debate, during the breaks, etc. They showed that version once. It has not-surprisingly been deleted from the C-Span archives.

    The rumor as it first appeared was that it was said DURING a debate. Only after somebody, you know, actually checked the debates has the story changed to say that this actually happened off stage. Whoever made this claim to you that C-Span scrubbed the tapes is lying. The full tapes of ALL the debates are on c-span’s website, which all cover a significant amount of time before and after the debates. Again, please check your facts before making easily debunked accusations.

    This agrees with The Obama File’s archives that recognize the fact that there are actually three kinds of U.S. citizenship – natural born citizen (required for POTUS), native born citizen, and naturalized citizen.

    The Obama File website has the right to believe whatever it wants. However, there is not a single member of Congress, judge, or legal scholar anywhere in the country who believes that there are “three kinds of U.S. citizenship.”

    I appreciate Steve Pidgeon’s letter in the fact that it is straightforward and he doesn’t engage in Alinsky style attacks, as Beck and most liberals do when trying to debate the issue.

    I do question some of his points as perhaps not based on ‘facts’; however, the fact that he did not resort to name calling gives him great credence in my book.

    So you are fine with Pidgeon telling long-debunked blatant lies so long as you believe that he is not resorting to name calling?

    Also, in what world are none of these things name calling?

    His legacy? A communist, collectivist fool, brainwashed by red diaper doper babies haunting the halls of ivy league academia whose agenda was to bring back the failed Bolshevik revolution worldwide, who brought his fully bloomed ignorance to power illegally in the US because of the needs of his narcissistic ego

    As for Obama: he will be one of history’s most reviled figures – on a par with Nero – as a fool who couldn’t even understand that when he denigrated the United States, he was destroying the very state upon which his safety and his legacy depended. He will suffer dramatic defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq – it will not be like Viet Nam, and his name will be tarred with it. It will be more like the disastrous defeat of Xerxes at Salamis, or the Ottomans at Sisek, or the Moors at Tours; a game changing defeat that will forever cement the destiny of the republic known as the United States of America. Obama will join the other names in history who suffered cataclysmic losses in the lands of Magog.

    He and his wife have partied like Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) since taking office

    In a seven paragraph letter, Pidgeon tells a blatant lie in the first paragraph and spends almost the entirety of the rest of his letter calling President Obama childish names! Just because you may happen to agree with his message (even if it’s “not based on facts”) does not mean that Pidgeon is not name-calling throughout the letter.

  25. 01/6/2010Christinewjc says:

    This agrees with The Obama File’s archives that recognize the fact that there are actually three kinds of U.S. citizenship – natural born citizen (required for POTUS), native born citizen, and naturalized citizen.

    The Obama File website has the right to believe whatever it wants. However, there is not a single member of Congress, judge, or legal scholar anywhere in the country who believes that there are “three kinds of U.S. citizenship.”

    In the following excerpt, notice the plural “allowed a foreign-born child OF AMERICAN CITIZENS” to be called “natural born.” Obama’s father was never a citizen of the United States. Therefore, he could not be called a “natural born citizen” – only a “native born” (descriptive) or “naturalized” citizen.

    With the Naturalization Act of 1795, they amended the law that allowed a foreign-born child of American citizens to be called “natural born,” not because they believed they were wrong on the premise of the loyalty deriving from the condition of the parents. They were not, because they still granted “naturalized citizenship” at birth to these children. What they realized is that other nations were not following the law of nature, but were instituting feudal laws that were based on Roman law. These laws said, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, that any child born on the soil of the King, the King had the right to claim as a subject of the Crown, forever. Their intention was to insure that “a natural born citizen” would have only one natural loyalty, and could be legally claimed as a citizen of only one country.

  26. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    “What is more interesting are the list of high profile people on the right that think the birth certificate issue is not legitimate or worthwhile….”

    Yet none of them are found all day on the internet telling birthers how stupid they are for wanting kindergarten records-

    The opposition pretend that it is about wanting to know such information as whether Obama learned to tie his shoes or not- they know it is to discover whether he was registered as a foreign student. They know and deflect.

    “Don’t you think that if it had and Keyes had the proof, he would have used it as supporting evidence in one if his lawsuits?”

    It is nice to see BL actually used Keyes’ name instead of calling him “Uncle Tom.” I read somewhere that Keyes doesn’t remember the exchange, but it wouldn’t have been shocking to him anyways. He already questions Obama’s eligibility. Can you quote your source, Q-man, that Keyes said the exchange never happened?

  27. 01/6/2010Sue says:

    Christinewjc,

    “It appears that you neglected to read the entire post. You should. You might learn something.”

    Actually, I did read the entire post. You might learn something if you would take the time to read this debate at PJ.

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3049&start=0

    There are only two types of citizens per the Constitution: 1. Born in U.S.A. = natural born, native born, citizen at birth or birthright citizen and 2. Naturalized citizen.

    To quote Judge Land:

    “Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”

  28. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    I went to see Keyes when he was the KEYnote (ha) speaker at an event a few months ago. I wanted to ask him some questions but there were too many people around him after wards, and I couldn’t wait around. I am pretty sure the organizers of the event have a personal relationship with Keyes so I am going to try to find out about that alleged exchange.

  29. 01/6/2010Sue says:

    “It is nice to see BL actually used Keyes’ name instead of calling him “Uncle Tom.” I read somewhere that Keyes doesn’t remember the exchange, but it wouldn’t have been shocking to him anyways. He already questions Obama’s eligibility. Can you quote your source, Q-man, that Keyes said the exchange never happened?”

    If I recall correctly, Keyes stated this on Chalice’s or Ed Hale’s radio show. I’m sure Keyes would have “remembered the exchange” if it had actually happened.

  30. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    Can you quote your source, Q-man, that Keyes said the exchange never happened?

    The P&E article I quoted from has a quote from Keyes saying he himself doesn’t recall anything like that.

    Also, use the slightest bit of common sense. Keyes has sued President Obama alleging that he is not a natural born citizen. If Obama had made some sort of confession, on or off stage, how likely would it be for Keyes to not mention it in a lawsuit or anywhere in public?

    Remember again, the story as originally reported was that Obama said during the debate he wasn’t a natural born citizen. Since that is clearly not true, the goalposts shifted to some off stage comment. Why do you tolerate people like Pidgeon lying or not checking their facts you over and over and over again?

    They lied to you about a travel ban to Pakistan. They lied to you that only Indonesian citizens could attend public school in Indonesia. They lied to you about not just one, but two forged Kenyan birth certificates. They lied to you that Obama said he wasn’t a natural born citizen during a publicly televised debate during a senatorial campaign. You are being lied to by leaders in the birther movement over and over and over again. There’s plenty of reasonable reasons to dislike Obama or his policies, but why should you listen to the lies of birther leaders?

  31. 01/6/2010slcraig says:


    Sue says:
    January 6, 2010 at 1:30 pm
    Christinewjc,

    “It appears that you neglected to read the entire post. You should. You might learn something.”

    Actually, I did read the entire post. You might learn something if you would take the time to read this debate at PJ.

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3049&start=0

    There are only two types of citizens per the Constitution: 1. Born in U.S.A. = natural born, native born, citizen at birth or birthright citizen and 2. Naturalized citizen.

    You continue to express that popular view of the left, so I have to ask, ‘what are you doing to make that ‘codified Public Law’?’

    Your little quote from Judge Land travels in both directions.

    To quote Judge Land:

    “Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”

    1. Born in U.S.A.OF TWO CITIZEN PARENTS = natural born citizen,

    2. Native born citizen at birth requiring the authority of the 14th amendment or birthright citizen derivative from one citizen parent.

    3. Naturalized citizen.

    Any proclamation that either definition is settled law is simply incorrect.

    Why are you afraid to support efforts to have the divergence of definitions decided in the courts and public arena?

  32. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    You continue to express that popular view of the left

    You’ve said over and over that this view of citizenship is somehow partisan or politicized.

    However, there is not a single judge, not a single member of Congress, and not a single current legal scholar anywhere in the country that agrees with your three-source citizenship. Quotes from Orrin Hatch and Don Nicholls, two conservative Republican senators, get posted here often that jive with the notion that anybody born on US soil and subject to its jurisdiction at birth is a natural born citizen.

    My challenge to you is to find member of Congress, judge, law school professor or constitutional scholar since 1900 who has said anything close to your three-fold classification of citizenship.

  33. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    “how likely would it be for Keyes to not mention it in a lawsuit or anywhere in public?”

    -If the tape was edited and the original is gone, there would be no proof for him to refer to. As I said, I think I can get the answer from him through a good second hand source who knows him personally, maybe even first hand if I have the opportunity to hear him again.

    “They lied to you about a travel ban to Pakistan. They lied to you that only Indonesian citizens could attend public school in Indonesia. They lied to you about not just one, but two forged Kenyan birth certificates. They lied to you that Obama said he wasn’t a natural born citizen during a publicly televised debate during a senatorial campaign. You are being lied to by leaders in the birther movement over and over and over again.”

    I don’t know if this was directed to me or not, but I don’t know where I have said that I have believed any of the above.

  34. 01/6/2010Sue says:

    “Your little quote from Judge Land travels in both directions.

    To quote Judge Land:

    “Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.””

    True, however, that “little quote” wasn’t directed at the opposition, now was it?

    “Any proclamation that either definition is settled law is simply incorrect.”

    SCOTUS precedents, Congress, real constitutional lawyers and experts and high school and college textbooks disagree.

    “Why are you afraid to support efforts to have the divergence of definitions decided in the courts and public arena?”

    Why are you afraid of people reading the thread at PJ where you debated with many of the competent, practicing lawyers regarding this subject?

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3049
    CRAIG v UNITED STATES

  35. 01/6/2010Black Lion says:

    sharon2 says:
    January 6, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    “What is more interesting are the list of high profile people on the right that think the birth certificate issue is not legitimate or worthwhile….”

    Yet none of them are found all day on the internet telling birthers how stupid they are for wanting kindergarten records-

    The opposition pretend that it is about wanting to know such information as whether Obama learned to tie his shoes or not- they know it is to discover whether he was registered as a foreign student. They know and deflect.

    “Don’t you think that if it had and Keyes had the proof, he would have used it as supporting evidence in one if his lawsuits?”

    It is nice to see BL actually used Keyes’ name instead of calling him “Uncle Tom.” I read somewhere that Keyes doesn’t remember the exchange, but it wouldn’t have been shocking to him anyways. He already questions Obama’s eligibility. Can you quote your source, Q-man, that Keyes said the exchange never happened?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sharon, you say “Yet none of them are found all day on the internet telling birthers how stupid they are for wanting kindergarten records.” But that wasn’t the point. The point was prominent conservatives that think the birthers are nuts. And as far as thinking that somehow kindergarten records matter regarding eligibility, no matter how you try and twist things there is no legal reason to view those records. It is none of anyone’s business. So anyone demanding that they be released are not exactly working with a full deck.

    The birthers make up some story about the President and think that the law should allow them to go on a fishing expedition to see if they can find proof regarding the smear. There has not been one shred of evidence that has even suggested that the President was enrolled at as some sort of foreign student. And if he was for some reason, how does that affect his eligibility? Would it change the underlying fact of him being born in HI? Will it somehow make him ineligible to be President? It wouldn’t. But since it is irrelevant and protected by privacy, it really doesn’t matter.

    I have used Keyes name before. He claims to have attended Harvard. Did we see any of his records? Has Harvard acknowledged that he attended there? Has any classmates come out and said they remembered that he did attended Harvard? To be honest it really doesn’t matter. Keyes is a joke. He has never won any sort of public office and never will. No one takes him seriously. He is just bitter because he lost of Obama.

    Q responded to your source question so I will defer to his answer.

  36. 01/6/2010Black Lion says:

    sharon2 says:
    January 6, 2010 at 2:27 pm
    how likely would it be for Keyes to not mention it in a lawsuit or anywhere in public?

    -If the tape was edited and the original is gone, there would be no proof for him to refer to. As I said, I think I can get the answer from him through a good second hand source who knows him personally, maybe even first hand if I have the opportunity to hear him again.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Keyes himself admitted it was not true. Not one person that attended the debate or was involved has come forwarded to even say that they heard that. This is an urban legend, kind of like the Pakistan travel ban that you birthers are desperate to be true. But again you have no evidence. Just some 3rd party hearsay. And as usual when pressed why it did not appear in the transcripts or on C-SPAN, it had to have been “scrubbed” by the President’s people. Wow. Obama must have the entire Mission Impossible team working for him. Scrubbing passport records, C-Span tapes, travel records, eliminating people in Chicago, getting rid of his grandmother in HI, and other stuff the birthers claim he has done. Don’t you get to the point that you realize how ridiculous these birther claims look and sound?

  37. 01/6/2010Sue says:

    “-If the tape was edited and the original is gone, there would be no proof for him to refer to. As I said, I think I can get the answer from him through a good second hand source who knows him personally, maybe even first hand if I have the opportunity to hear him again.”

    Yes, I’m sure Keyes will now say he had this exchange with President Obama–could not recall the conversation but now all of a sudden remembers the conversation and claims the tape was edited?

    Typical spin.

  38. 01/6/2010slcraig says:

    Sue says:
    January 6, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    “Your little quote from Judge Land travels in both directions.

    To quote Judge Land:

    “Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.””

    True, however, that “little quote” wasn’t directed at the opposition, now was it?

    “Any proclamation that either definition is settled law is simply incorrect.”

    SCOTUS precedents, Congress, real constitutional lawyers and experts and high school and college textbooks disagree.

    “Why are you afraid to support efforts to have the divergence of definitions decided in the courts and public arena?”

    Why are you afraid of people reading the thread at PJ where you debated with many of the competent, practicing lawyers regarding this subject?

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3049
    CRAIG v UNITED STATES

    So you and you comrades rely on UNSETTLED LAW to qualify the ‘Leader of the Free World’………..a usurper by any other name…..

    AND…….obviously you have differing concepts and understandings of FEAR as well…all of my personal documentation is in the blogosphere, unlike your protected one’s.

    I fear only falling from God’s, and His Son’s, grace and nothing more.

  39. 01/6/2010slcraig says:

    Sue says:
    January 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm
    “-If the tape was edited and the original is gone, there would be no proof for him to refer to. As I said, I think I can get the answer from him through a good second hand source who knows him personally, maybe even first hand if I have the opportunity to hear him again.”

    Yes, I’m sure Keyes will now say he had this exchange with President Obama–could not recall the conversation but now all of a sudden remembers the conversation and claims the tape was edited?

    Typical spin.

    You might try finding the ‘actual’ tape from the ‘actual’ 2nd debate…………

  40. 01/6/2010Joss Brown says:

    There is only one class of US citizen, namely the US citizen. Every citizen has the same rights. But being eligible for President is not a right, it’s a constitutional measure for national security, in order to prevent foreign influences on the office of POTUS.

    The only possible differences of the one class of US citizens are based on the individual’s path to US citizenship, because that can vary:

    You can be (1) a natural born citizen (traditionally: native-born plus 2 citizen parents = no foreign allegiance/subjection, important for POTUS); (2) a 14th Amendment native-born citizen (i.e. including those dual citizen children born on US soil of one or two foreign parents who are permanently domiciled in the US, like e.g. Wong Kim Ark); (3) a 14th Amendment naturalized citizen; (4) a statutory foreign-born US citizen (naturalization act for foreign born citizens, Immigration and Nationality Act, age plus number of residential years of US parent in the US etc.); (5) all other native-born US citizens, e.g. those anchor babies, where none of the foreign parents has permanent residence/domicile in the US, which is why Wong Kim Ark does not apply for them, which is why they are not 14th Amendment citizens. They are statutory native-born citizens, with dual nationality etc., whereas their US citizenship is only granted based on assumption, because it has no constitutional basis.

    Obama is the latter, path #5 to citizenship. His father was not permanently domiciled, so Wong Kim Ark does not apply to Obama. He is a British natural born subject and a statutory non-14th-Amendment native-born citizen.

    There are other more specific ways to citizenship, depending on your place of birth (Guam, PCZ, Puerto Rico etc.), where different statutes apply.

    Historically there were two other important categories: (a) Statutory natural-born citizens, i.e. those citizens born abroad of two citizen parents under the Naturalization Act of 1790 (repealed in 1795), whereas the FAM states it’s uncertain whether these statutory NBCs would have been natural-born citizens for constitutional purposes (i.e. eligible for President); and (b) the Framers themselves, “citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”, born on British soil, British subjects for life, but made US citizens, not natural-born, ineligible, which is why the grandfather clause was necessary.

    That’s about it… maybe I forgot something.

  41. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    A link would be nice for the Keyes’ comment. I don’t have any idea where the P&E source is. I have read that he doesn’t remember the exchange, but it wasn’t a direct quote from him. I don’t have a link, but I have my own source to find out whether he said it didn’t happen or whether he doesn’t remember it. Maybe he didn’t catch Obama’s response if it happened in quick succession or cross talk. It won’t be that hard for me to contact the organizers of the event who know him.

    As for the kindergarten records, you can say that they are private but certainly they would show whether or not he was registered as a foreign student. That is where the interest lies. I don’t think it is necessary to go that far, but I won’t condemn others for wanting that kind of definitive proof. I also have no idea if it is an internet myth that his kindergarten records are lost. That itself would not be shocking unless his were the only ones lost. Then it would be suspicious but not conclusive. I think there is a split between Pidgeon and Donofrio on their views, but they are working together for a common purpose: to be heard in court. I am behind their trying. And here, everyone thought Leo was home spazzing out in anti-depressants.

    I don’t care what your thoughts are about Alan Keyes. He is willing to stick his neck out for the pro-life movement. If someone were to ask him for his records to prove his eligibility should he be interested again in the presidency, I would expect him to provide them.

    “This is an urban legend, kind of like the Pakistan travel ban that you birthers are desperate to be true.”

    You know, I can, with work, find the place where I disputed any kind of travel ban I don’t think you want to try me on that one. I also spoke up right away that I smelled hoax for the Kenyan certificate.

    “The point was prominent conservatives that think the birthers are nuts.”

    Wow, that has never been said before. You also think GB is nuts as well as Coulter and Malkin, or am I wrong?

    It’s probably time to check in with your other websites about now.

  42. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    -If the tape was edited and the original is gone, there would be no proof for him to refer to. As I said, I think I can get the answer from him through a good second hand source who knows him personally, maybe even first hand if I have the opportunity to hear him again.

    Hey, go ahead and choose not to believe the very story I quoted where Keyes says he doesn’t remember anything close to that story occurring during a debate. I would certainly take anything posted on P&E with a metric ton of salt myself.

    The original is gone. Are you saying that a campaign would not record the debate itself, or DVR or VCR? That it wouldn’t immediately order a copy of the entire debate from C-SPAN or any other original source immediately after the debate to go through for potential ads in the last few weeks of a campaign?

    Also, the original is still on C-SPAN’s website!

    I don’t know if this was directed to me or not, but I don’t know where I have said that I have believed any of the above.

    Do you not find it odd that the ringleaders of the movement have been telling you these lies over and over again? Why are they telling you things that a random person on the internet can disprove with about 2 minutes of fact-checking? Whether or not you believe what they say or not, the leaders of the birther movement such as Berg, WND, Taitz and P&E have been trying to tell you lies for over a year now. I certainly would stop listening to them if I had been lied to that often and that blatantly. I wouldn’t appreciate the insults to my intelligence that they offer.

  43. 01/6/2010Joss Brown says:

    On the Keyes debate I’m with qwertyman. To date I have not seen a single piece of evidence that Obama actually admitted during that debate that he’s not natural born. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. So… where is it? And even if that statement of Obama is actually true, it still does not mean that he “admitted” that he was not natural-born. All he allegedly said was: “That’s okay, I’m not running for President.” It’s equally feasible that Obama simply wanted to cut the argument short, because he thought it was irrelevant during a senatorial campaign. Saying that Obama “admitted” something is an inadmissable argument from silence.

  44. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    A link would be nice for the Keyes’ comment. I don’t have any idea where the P&E source is. I have read that he doesn’t remember the exchange, but it wasn’t a direct quote from him. I don’t have a link, but I have my own source to find out whether he said it didn’t happen or whether he doesn’t remember it. Maybe he didn’t catch Obama’s response if it happened in quick succession or cross talk. It won’t be that hard for me to contact the organizers of the event who know him.

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/2nd-witness-to-obama-admission-in-keyes-vs-obama-2004-debate/

    Here’s the allegation:

    It was definitely from the second debate held on Oct 21, 2004. It did not take place back stage as some have reported. Both candidates were standing on the stage behind their respective podiums. The background was blue.

    The entire clip just showed Keyes as he turned his head toward Obama saying, ‘Well, you’re not even a natural born citizen.’ Obama confidently responds, ‘That’s OK, I’m not running for President, I’m only running for the Senate.’ That was the end of the video. Very, very short.

    At the end of the airing of the second debate, the C-Span host noted, as he read from a single sheet of paper, placed before him, that the Obama Campaign had contacted them and requested them to point out to their viewers that Obama’s response here should not be understood as a denial that he is a natural born citizen, only that Keyes’ accusation had nothing to do with the qualifications of office of a U.S. Senator.

    I distinctly remember my dismay at Obama’s response, at that time, concerned why he called the office he was running for “Illinois” senator, but did not call the U.S. Presidency with any distinctive adjective.

    I subsequently spoke with Alan Keyes, one evening, by phone, when he appeared on Plains Radio:, in January, I think. I asked him about this exchange; he said he did not remember it; but he did not deny it took place.

    Here’s the unedited video of the debate:

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/184058-1

    I read the transcript several months ago, haven’t been able to refind it. There is absolutely no reference to “natural born citizen” or anything close to it in any of the four debates.

    Sharon, think this through. Alan Keyes has alleged that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. Somebody told Keyes that they heard him make that allegation and that Obama “confessed” that he wasn’t a natural born citizen. It’s been months since that story was posted, which means that Keyes has had at least three months to go back and check for himself. Are you saying that his campaign was so incompetently run that they didn’t record the debates as they were happening? Nobody remembers the comment from the audience, or any of the tens of thousands, if not millions, of viewers of the debate remember it either? None of them recorded it? The allegation is that it happened during the debate. Very specific language is quoted, none of which appears on the C-SPAN tape or transcripts. Keyes doesn’t remember the exchange at all, and either has not bothered to follow up in the past three months or it never happened.

    How mind-boggling stupid does one have to be to think that Barack Obama publicly admitted that he was not a natural born citizen during a televised debate, but that fact was not brought up at any point during a nearly two-year campaign, and the additional year of birther smears since then?

    Sharon, this is a quintessential example of the lies you are being told by leaders in the birther movement. At what point are you going to start looking at their accusations with the same skepticism as the obots? They have tried to lie to you dozens of times. Why give them any credibility at this point?

  45. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    “Sharon, this is a quintessential example of the lies you are being told by leaders in the birther movement. At what point are you going to start looking at their accusations with the same skepticism as the obots? They have tried to lie to you dozens of times. Why give them any credibility at this point?”

    Q, that issue is not the defining moment for me. It sounds like the quote you read shows that Keyes doesn’t remember it and it could be, as I said, cross talk or whatever. I don’t know that you have an unedited link or not.

    It doesn’t matter. Keyes is one of those who brought a case so to use him as an example of debunking the “birther” (I prefer questioner) movement, is really irrelevant. My mind is much more open than yours, as is MGB’s and Phil’s and I am sure other “questioners.”

    I will get the Keyes information myself. It is not going to be that difficult, just a matter of connecting with some people when the opportunity arises. Again, you are taking one bit and blowing it into the main focus of eligibility issues.

  46. 01/6/2010Black Lion says:

    This story is a hoax. Most of the hardcore Obama haters don’t even believe it. For instance lets us take a look at Free Republic, where they hate the Presdent. Most of them think it is a hoax.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141519/posts

    And there is the comment from Alan Keyes’ own campaign manager…From a post over at FR…

    I must agree with others here who say or imply that ‘the tape’ is a hoax. I sent an email to Alan Keyes’ website, stating I’d heard of an exchange between Keyes and Obama in which Obama had made this admission, but that I suspected it hadn’t happened. I got the following response from Tom Hoefling:

    Charles,

    Your instincts are right. That exchange never happened. It was the invention of somebody on the internet, one which seems to have sort of taken on a life of its own.

    Thanks for your diligence in getting at the truth.

    Tom Hoefling
    Chairman, America’s Independent Party
    Chairman, Alan Keyes for President 2008
    http://www.selfgovernment.us
    http://www.AIPNEWS.com
    http://www.AlanKeyes.com

    In other words Sharon you can continue to believe that this so called exchange actually happened or not. That is up to you. But even the anti-Obama people don’t think that it happened. And that should tell you something…

  47. 01/6/2010Joss Brown says:

    Again, you are taking one bit and blowing it into the main focus of eligibility issues.

    Actually it was Stephen Pidgeon, who blew it into the main focus of eligibility issues. The problem is that this conjecture about Obama’s alleged comment is most probably false, so what is Glenn Beck supposed to think when he reads or even researches that comment? He’ll find out it’s nonsense, and will think that the rest of Pidgeon’s open letter would then probably be nonsense too, without giving it any further scrutiny. So, what did Beck say again? Ah, yes: “Why do that when these people are so discrediting themselves?” That remark about Obama’s alleged comment is a perfect example of what Beck was talking about. If there is no evidence, it’s irrelevant. An attorney should know that.

  48. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    “Do you not find it odd that the ringleaders of the movement have been telling you these lies over and over again?”

    Q,

    I first heard of the eligibility issue at America’s Right. I have followed discussion mainly here, and independently formed my own opinions about what has been transpired. As far as “kookology,”I find it strange that the people who find this issue the most ridiculous are the ones who bomb the board with comments and spend, in total, the most time here. If I felt something were truly outlandish and doomed to fail, I wouldn’t waste the precious time I have on this earth talking about how ridiculous and stupid it is! I don’t find the eligibility issue ridiculous. And I spend not nearly the time here as the opposition!

    IMO, for someone to spend a significant amount of the day on a subject that the person finds laughable, he/she has some mental issues or some kind of an agenda. And I mean significant amount of time either here and/or elsewhere, not just popping in for a good debate here and there.

  49. 01/6/2010Black Lion says:

    I have to repost this….

    This story is a hoax. Most of the hardcore Obama haters don’t even believe it. For instance lets us take a look at Free Republic, where they hate the Presdent. Most of them think it is a hoax.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141519/posts

    And there is the comment from Alan Keyes’ own campaign manager…From a post over at FR…

    I must agree with others here who say or imply that ‘the tape’ is a hoax. I sent an email to Alan Keyes’ website, stating I’d heard of an exchange between Keyes and Obama in which Obama had made this admission, but that I suspected it hadn’t happened. I got the following response from Tom Hoefling:

    Charles,

    Your instincts are right. That exchange never happened. It was the invention of somebody on the internet, one which seems to have sort of taken on a life of its own.

    Thanks for your diligence in getting at the truth.

    Tom Hoefling
    Chairman, America’s Independent Party
    Chairman, Alan Keyes for President 2008
    http://www.AlanKeyes.com

    In other words Sharon you can continue to believe that this so called exchange actually happened or not. That is up to you. But even the anti-Obama people don’t think that it happened. And that should tell you something…
    __________________________________________________________________
    You state the following…

    “I will get the Keyes information myself. It is not going to be that difficult, just a matter of connecting with some people when the opportunity arises. Again, you are taking one bit and blowing it into the main focus of eligibility issues.”

    OK. If Keyes says that it happened, will that be suffcient proof? Especially since the debates were taped and it doesn’t appear on any tape copies? So then what? Keyes word is enough to indict Obama? Not at all. This entire issue makes Pidgeon’s letter look foolish.

  50. 01/6/2010brygenon says:

    So operation “flood it” gained the eligibility deniers a mention from Glenn Beck. Alas, if there’s one thing they hate more than being ignored by the media, it’s being covered by the media.

    Steven Pidgeon doesn’t seem to know how anything works. The networks all have legal analysts on staff. Beck himself might not know the law, but if he thinks there might be any merit to Pidgeon and Donofrio’s theory, Beck can easily run it by Fox’s lawyers for instant debunking.

  51. 01/6/2010slcraig says:

    oss Brown says:
    January 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm
    There is only one class of US citizen, namely the US citizen. Every citizen has the same rights. But being eligible for President is not a right, it’s a constitutional measure for national security, in order to prevent foreign influences on the office of POTUS.

    The only possible differences of the one class of US citizens are based on the individual’s path to US citizenship, because that can vary:
    That’s about it… maybe I forgot something.

    _______________________________________________________
    _______________________________________________________

    I applaud your thorough and complete posting of the dissemination of the ‘paths’ to citizenship as could also have been found on Leo’s site. (Leo’s archives are currently ‘dark’.)

    I would note however that it appears the current USCIS, and its predecessor, preferred the word ‘Status’ when referencing the results of the various circumstances in acquiring and/or deriving citizenship.

  52. 01/6/2010earl says:

    So the birther movement is actually being stoked by the Obots? Ooo, HQ is not going to like that this has been revealed so much earlier than planned. I wonder if this means the birther bloggers are going to stop getting their checks? AGJ really had you guys going, huh? Betcha didn’t know about the huge kudos Bob Campbell and the jaghunter have gotten from Rahm! And you wondered why Bob didn’t need no paypal button! Pwned!

  53. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    Q, that issue is not the defining moment for me. It sounds like the quote you read shows that Keyes doesn’t remember it and it could be, as I said, cross talk or whatever. I don’t know that you have an unedited link or not.

    I posted the link to the unedited C-SPAN video of the debate where it’s alleged Obama said he was not a natural born citizen.

    It doesn’t matter. Keyes is one of those who brought a case so to use him as an example of debunking the “birther” (I prefer questioner) movement, is really irrelevant.

    This does not make sense. I’m using the fact that Keyes said he did not remember the alleged exchange as evidence that it didn’t happen. I combine that with the inference that in the past several months Keyes either did not bother to check his tape of the debate to see if it happened, or did check and saw that it didn’t. Keyes as a major party political candidate would record all debates as they happened. If this exchange did take place he would have said something by now.

    My mind is much more open than yours, as is MGB’s and Phil’s and I am sure other “questioners.”

    Saying something is so does not make it so.

    I will get the Keyes information myself. It is not going to be that difficult, just a matter of connecting with some people when the opportunity arises. Again, you are taking one bit and blowing it into the main focus of eligibility issues.

    Let’s say Keyes says it didn’t happen. Would you then believe you were lied to?

    Let’s say Keyes says that it did happen. Think this through. This was a televised debate seen live across Illinois (and by others excited by the prospect of a Senator Obama). A “confession” such as this would have been seen by thousands, would have been public, and would have appeared in debate transcripts. The exchange does not appear in transcripts, the exchange does not appear on video, which covers time before and after the debates. Are you going to take Keyes’ word for it?

    I’m not saying that this is “the main focus” of eligibility issues. But this is a very easy example to show you that you are being constantly lied to by leaders in the birther movement. You are being lied to in blatantly obvious ways. They aren’t even clever lies. It took 5 minutes of review of a transcript, and an hour of watching a debate to see that what Pidgeon claims happened during a debate never did. This has happened many, many times from many different people who are influential in the movement. WND itself has falsely claimed dozens of times that there was a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981. Why should you believe a website that has either lied dozens of times or not bothered to engage in the simplest fact checking before making an extraordinary claim like that?

    Why would you believe somebody who lies so casually about something so easy to check?

  54. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    Once and for all,

    The Keyes exchange is irrelevant; I was curious to hear what Keyes himself says from my own sources. I have already said it sounds like he doesn’t remember it. I didn’t suddenly appear with my views just now because Pidgeon wrote a letter with a claim in it. Pidgeon shouldn’t have said it without some kind of proof. Big deal. I didn’t hire him. It doesn’t change any of my questions. Q continues to insult my intelligence by quoting again and again how individuals “have lied to me.” I haven’t had personal conversations with anyone. My questions about eligibility don’t hinge on Keyes and Orly.

  55. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    The Keyes exchange is irrelevant; I was curious to hear what Keyes himself says from my own sources.

    You’re certainly welcome to ask Keyes what he has to say about the matter. I’d be interested in hearing it myself.

    The alleged Keyes exchange is relevant from the standpoint that Phil’s entire post here is about a letter Pidgeon wrote. Pidgeon has told a blatant lie in the first paragraph of his letter that Phil should have taken note of. There are a lot of birthers who are hoping that Pidgeon has success with Donofrio on the Chrysler case. However, he can’t even write an introductory paragraph of a letter to Glenn Beck without telling a whopper of a lie.

    I didn’t suddenly appear with my views just now because Pidgeon wrote a letter with a claim in it.

    I know. But the people who have been in the news advocating for your views are telling lies in public. Easily debunked lies. Why aren’t you angry about that?

    Pidgeon shouldn’t have said it without some kind of proof.

    If he’s telling whoppers this huge on a matter this black and white, why should you believe anything he says about a more complicated matter regarding Chrysler dealerships?

    Q continues to insult my intelligence by quoting again and again how individuals “have lied to me.” I haven’t had personal conversations with anyone.

    When Donald Rumsfeld says “We know where Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction are,” he is lying to you. When a statement is put out for public consumption, it is a statement that is being made to you. Taitz has said that you and anybody else should support her lawsuits because she has a birth certificate stating Obama was born in Kenya. When Taitz says that, she is lying to you, even if she is not saying that to you face to face.

  56. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    When a statement is put out for public consumption, it is a statement that is being made to you.

    – It was actually a letter to GB that has been distributed for public consumption. Pidgeon doesn’t represent me. I wish him the best of luck in getting the case heard, particularly because from what I understand, there were some profitable dealerships that suffered. If the quo warranto action manages to get heard, even better. Maybe you are angry enough for the both of us?

  57. 01/6/2010brygenon says:

    sharon2 says:

    Once and for all,

    The Keyes exchange is irrelevant;

    Irrelevant? I’m looking at the article. Its title begins, “Pidgeon Responds”. The article features that response, in which the last sentence of the first paragraph reads, “Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.” That’s the (alleged) “Keyes exchange”. Irrelevant? The content of the article is irrelevant to comments on the article?

    The exchange is a myth. There’s no record of it from the time. Alan Keyes doesn’t remember it. The story has Keyes asserting in 2004 that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but as of 2008 Keyes claims not to know whether Obama is a natural born citizen.

  58. 01/6/2010sharon2 says:

    clarification- irrelevant to me-

  59. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    It was actually a letter to GB that has been distributed for public consumption.

    So you have no problem that he’s telling lies to Glenn Beck in letters that are distributed for the public to read? Pidgeon is sending this for everybody to read because he wants people like you to pressure Beck into taking birthers seriously. When Pidgeon repeats old and easily debunked lies he is the one insulting your intelligence, not me.

    Pidgeon doesn’t represent me. I wish him the best of luck in getting the case heard, particularly because from what I understand, there were some profitable dealerships that suffered.

    And where did you hear that from? Donofrio and Pidgeon, the guys filing the case! If Pidgeon is willing to tell such whoppers of lies in letters to Glenn Beck, why should you believe anything he has to say about the Chrysler dealerships?

    If the quo warranto action manages to get heard, even better. Maybe you are angry enough for the both of us?

    Doesn’t matter the lies that are told or the intellectual dishonesty that is spread, just so long as your case against Obama manages to get heard, eh?

  60. 01/6/2010LisaGinNZ says:

    Thanks for posting Mr. Pidgeon’s letter Phil.

    Obviously those of us who read your stuff, but rarely comment due to influx of paid obots here (like Quirky-man and Bring-none) fully expect the stupid comments, lies and tale (or and tail) spinning.

    Yawn, your pro-Obumbles responses are damn boring guys. Go sell koolaid elsewhere. Go back to Huffpo why don’t ya’ll. Spare us your idiocy.

    bla bla bla (ok, your turn to bash me nonsensically with some stoopid comment… I don’t give a damn. I’m armed and waiting.)

  61. 01/6/2010Sue says:

    “LisaGinNZ says:
    January 6, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    Thanks for posting Mr. Pidgeon’s letter Phil.

    Obviously those of us who read your stuff, but rarely comment due to influx of paid obots here (like Quirky-man and Bring-none) fully expect the stupid comments, lies and tale (or and tail) spinning.

    Yawn, your pro-Obumbles responses are damn boring guys. Go sell koolaid elsewhere. Go back to Huffpo why don’t ya’ll. Spare us your idiocy.

    bla bla bla (ok, your turn to bash me nonsensically with some stoopid comment… I don’t give a damn. I’m armed and waiting.)”

    Wonderful comment. “paid obots, stupid/stoopid comments, lies and tale (or tail) spinning, pro-Obumbles, idiocy, koolaid and my personal favorite “armed and waiting.”

  62. 01/6/2010brygenon says:

    LisaGinNZ says:

    Obviously those of us who read your stuff, but rarely comment due to influx of paid obots here (like Quirky-man and Bring-none) fully expect the stupid comments, lies and tale (or and tail) spinning.

    Paid obots — hey — where’s my check?

    Really LisaGin, does it not dawn on you that you probably shouldn’t complain about lies in the same sentence that you tell one?

  63. 01/6/2010Census Worker says:

    MORE CENSUS RACISM?

    A Fort Collins news reporter is looking into an investigation in regards to U.S. Census Worker Jeff Beck of Douglas, Wyoming calling a co-worker a “Token Native American Indian” during a company meeting just prior to the 2009 Christmas holiday, sources say.   The US CENSUS out of Lakewood Colorado did not immediately return a phone call for comment.  No other information is available at this time other than an anonymous source stating that Beck was not reprimanded.

  64. 01/6/2010ann says:

    Re: “Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.”

    No he didn’t. He simply said that since they were both running for Senate, the requirements for Senate did not require them to be Natural Born Citizens. That is the truth. It scored some points because apparently Keynes did not know that you do not have to be Natural Born to be a senator, and it avoided Obama’s saying “Yes, I am Natural Born. I was born in Hawaii”–which was irrelevant to the Illinois Senate race and might have lost him a few votes from people who prefer their Senators to be born in Illinois.

  65. 01/6/2010qwertyman says:

    No he didn’t. He simply said that since they were both running for Senate, the requirements for Senate did not require them to be Natural Born Citizens. That is the truth. It scored some points because apparently Keynes did not know that you do not have to be Natural Born to be a senator, and it avoided Obama’s saying “Yes, I am Natural Born. I was born in Hawaii”–which was irrelevant to the Illinois Senate race and might have lost him a few votes from people who prefer their Senators to be born in Illinois.

    That and the exchange alleged never actually happened. Pidgeon is relying on somebody making up a story and not bothering to check the easily verifiable or debunkable facts.

    So yeah, the entire post is based around a guy who is telling a blatant lie in the first paragraph of a letter designed to convince Glen Beck to take birthers seriously. Interesting.

  66. 01/7/2010earl says:

    qwertyman says:
    January 6, 2010 at 6:34 pm
    *Pidgeon is sending this for everybody to read because he wants people like you to pressure Beck into taking birthers seriously. *

    Funny thing about Beck is he is a fairly intelligent guy who seems to be able to absorb a lot of information. As whacky as some of his “performance art” is, you can tell there is a lot of preparation and reading that goes into that Schtick. I think Mr Beck needs links to where this nonsense is debunked. Only 12 people showed up for Orly’s O’Reilly protest. FoxNews knows the birther movement is too small to have any affect on Beck’s ratings if they all left in a huff.

  67. 01/7/2010Gina says:

    http://freedomedium.com/2009/07/obama-signs-executive-order-barring-release-of-his-birth-certificate/

    Obama Signs Executive Order Barring Release Of His Birth Certificate

    July 18, 2009 · carl

    UPDATE: At the time this post was published it appears as though we may have been misinterpreting the section of US Code covered by this Executive Order. While this EO may not necessarily cover Obama’s birth certificate, the question raised in the post still applies. Why, with everything going on at the time, was this one of Obama’s first orders of business? For a more precise analysis of this EO and its implications see Pamela Geller’s comment below or visit this link: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html. Our attention to the eligibility issue started with the case of Major Cook because of the implications the outcome of his case could have on all members of the military and the potential of a Constitutional crisis. We will continue to follow his case and others that reach the courts.

    Original Post:

    First, we did a story about an Army Major who filed suit regarding his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama was not America’s legitimate Commander-In Chief.

    World Net Daily thought highly enough of this article to link to it on their front page.

    Then we did an article pointing out the differences between a Birth Cerificate and a Certification Of Live Birth.

    Some of the biggest names in conservative news have weighed in on this topic, such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and numerous others have offered their opinions.

    One of the people at the forefront of this issue is Joseph Farah and his staff over at World Net Daily.

    They are even running an online petition demanding Obama produce a long-form birth certificate.

    Thanks to the alertness of our great friend and loyal supporter Erica, who gave us the heads-up on this. it appears that the issue of Obama being forced to produce a copy of his birth certificate may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

    On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.

    For those of you who can’t take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:

    “Sec.2

    Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records

    When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”

    Now for all of you who commented on our previous articles that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama’s birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn’t this strike you as just a little odd?

    That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?

    This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?

    If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.

    [End of article]

  68. 01/8/2010Sue says:

    Gina,

    “Thanks to the alertness of our great friend and loyal supporter Erica, who gave us the heads-up on this. it appears that the issue of Obama being forced to produce a copy of his birth certificate may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

    On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.

    For those of you who can’t take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:

    “Sec.2

    Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records

    When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”

    Now for all of you who commented on our previous articles that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama’s birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn’t this strike you as just a little odd?

    That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?

    This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?

    If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.”

    Gina, You really should get out more to non-birther blogs. This rumor was debunked a long time ago. I sure hope you will take the time to read this so you will stop spreading false information.

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/the-executive-order-13489-myth.html
    “The Executive Order 13489 Myth
    Another canon in birther mythology is the claim that Barack Obama signed an Executive Order his first day in office sealing his records.

    While he did sign an executive order (Executive Order 13489), the truth of the matter is a bit different than what the birthers claim.

    As in 180 degrees different.

    On 18 January 1989, then-President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12667, which established policies and procedures to govern “Executive Privilege” from current and former Presidents in connection with their Presidential Records, which among other things allowed the Archivist of the United States to release those records unless, within 30 days from notification, the current or former President says “no”.

    On 5 November 2001, the-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13233, which restricted those records for a period of 12 years after the President in question left office and increased the time to 90 days. In addition, it allowed the current President to override the requests of the former President in regards to those records. It specifically revoked Reagan’s order of 18 January 1989.

    So what did Obama’s Executive Order 13489 do?

    It is almost word for word an exact copy of Reagan’s order of 18 January 1989, and has the effect of expanding access to Presidential records by specifically revoking Bush’s order of 5 November 2001.

    Here’s the other thing that birthers don’t seem to understand about Executive Order 13489.

    It only applies to Presidential Records, not the records before one became president. And there’s nothing in Executive Order 13489 that hides the pre-Presidential records at all.

    It’s interesting how the birthers could take something that is almost identical to what Ronald Reagan did in office, and turn it 180 to claim it’s something it’s really not.

    The myth that Obama signed an order hiding his records? Busted.”

  69. 01/8/2010Sue says:

    “New Docket Entries…

    01/06/2010 Appellant’s motion for stay of sanctions is DENIED. (GBT, SHB, CRW) No

    01/06/2010 MOT2 (Notice of court action) issued. To:Jonathan Harris Levy; c:Orly Taitz; c:Rebecca E. Ausprung, Major; c:Sheetul S. Wall No”

  70. 01/8/2010sharon2 says:

    It is clear that Keyes does not remember any exchange with Obama about the NBC issue. It couldn’t have happened in a way that was obvious to Keyes, and maybe that was one of his smaller points in this good article.

    “Contrary to Beck’s assertion, I and others like me do not take the position that we know that Obama is not eligible for the presidency.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121267

  71. 01/8/2010Black Lion says:

    WND Birthers Getting Desperate
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    In trying to shoot down Glenn Beck’s dismissal of the birther conspiracy — which has a massive investment in — WorldNetDaily sent out Jerome Corsi to reiterate the case … which is just as lame as it always has been.

    In a Jan. 7 WND article, Corsi gamely tries to insist that, contrary to the idea that birthers believe “a wild conspiracy in which Obama’s parents, knowing he would someday be president, ‘preemptively’ collaborated with two separate newspapers to publish phony announcements stating he was born in Hawaii,” the truth is that “the birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii.”

    Note the word “might” in there. That’s a major clue that WND’s birther conspiracy hinges on what might be the truth. To do that, WND must discredit what the truth in all likelihood is — that the birth announcements are credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Corsi also rehashes the worn-out case that Obama’s Hawaii certification of live birth is “not proof he was born in Hawaii,” repeating an old canard:

    WND also reported that until recently, even the Hawaii state government refused to accept a short-form COLB as proof of a Hawaiian birth required for eligibility in state programs. The Hawaiian Home Lands program, for example, required a “long-form birth certificate” filled out in the hospital with details such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician.

    If a short-form COLB was not good enough for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, submitting a newspaper-printed birth announcement as proof of a Hawaiian birth would have been rejected immediately.

    As we’ve detailed, the Home Lands program is not for people born in Hawaii but, rather, for those of “native Hawaiian” ancestry. Since Obama is not of native Hawaiian ancestry, he would not be eligible to apply for it in any case, so whether his birth certificate is sufficient to apply is irrelevant.

    Corsi and WND are merely engaging in recycled bamboozlement in a fit of pique at Beck. WND didn’t take it well when Beck slammed its pet conspiracy and, if the related opt-in poll is any indication, neither did its readers.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/

  72. 01/8/2010qwertyman says:

    It is clear that Keyes does not remember any exchange with Obama about the NBC issue. It couldn’t have happened in a way that was obvious to Keyes, and maybe that was one of his smaller points in this good article.

    And the entire story behind that supposed exchange was that Keyes outright said that Obama wasn’t a natural born citizen, to which Obama had no denial. Five years later, Keyes says he doesn’t know either way.

    Again, when the first paragraph of a letter around which this entire article is about contains a giant whopper of a lie, there’s serious problems.

  73. 01/8/2010Black Lion says:

    sharon2 says:
    January 8, 2010 at 10:30 am
    It is clear that Keyes does not remember any exchange with Obama about the NBC issue. It couldn’t have happened in a way that was obvious to Keyes, and maybe that was one of his smaller points in this good article.

    “Contrary to Beck’s assertion, I and others like me do not take the position that we know that Obama is not eligible for the presidency.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121267
    ____________________________________________________________________
    You might want to post what Keyes says in his next sentence…

    “We have simply observed that there is a positive constitutional requirement that he be a natural born citizen of the United States, and that the evidence thus far available does not establish that he is. We have asked that the courts or the Congress fulfill their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and that they pursue an authoritative investigation of the facts and issues involved in order to reach a substantive decision that addresses the constitutional requirement. Thus far they have refused to do so.”

    In his next sentence he show his obvious delusions…He and a few cranks feel that the evidence available does not establish that President Obama is eligible. However he and his small minority of worshippers are not the law or responsible for making that decision. The SCOTUS ruling in Wong solved the question regarding what a natural born citizen is. Just because Keyes doesn’t agree doesn’t make it not so. The state of HI released a statement saying that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

    So according to the Constitution’s requirements, being a natural born citizen, being over 35, and living in the US for 14 years he meets all of them. The courts have refused to address this issue because they can’t. The Constitution designates how to challenge an election. The people that could have challenged it, 435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, and 1 VP did not. Too bad. And Deal was one of those Congressmen and he did nothing. Barack Obama is the President, not matter what Keyes thinks…

  74. 01/8/2010sharon2 says:

    “You might want to post what Keyes says in his next sentence…”

    Doh! I stopped right at that point and forgot to read the rest… I’ll have to get my bro.. I mean husband to he’p me with the reddin’ after I warsh out the hoods.

  75. 01/9/2010Manchurian Messiah says:

    Hey Phil,

    PIDGEON’S WRONG AGAIN!

    I am not disqualified to “run for the office of President.”

    I am not ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE. I can run all Day!

    Big difference.

    Regards,

    MM – Your Constitutional Commando

  76. 01/9/2010washburn says:

    qwertyman says:
    January 6, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Q, that issue is not the defining moment for me. It sounds like the quote you read shows that Keyes doesn’t remember it and it could be, as I said, cross talk or whatever. I don’t know that you have an unedited link or not.

    I posted the link to the unedited C-SPAN video of the debate where it’s alleged Obama said he was not a natural born citizen.

    Were did you posted the link? I would like to see the video.

  77. 01/9/2010qwertyman says:

    Q, that issue is not the defining moment for me. It sounds like the quote you read shows that Keyes doesn’t remember it and it could be, as I said, cross talk or whatever. I don’t know that you have an unedited link or not.

    I posted the link to the unedited C-SPAN video of the debate where it’s alleged Obama said he was not a natural born citizen.

    Were did you posted the link? I would like to see the video.

    OK, so we’re saying Keyes doesn’t remember. Let’s think about this for a minute.

    As far as I can tell this rumor started in December ’08 with a post on the racist website Stormfront. It was seconded on another racist hate site, FreeRepublic.

    Here’s a quote from the account of this supposed exchange from Post & Email:

    I subsequently spoke with Alan Keyes, one evening, by phone, when he appeared on Plains Radio:, in January, I think. I asked him about this exchange; he said he did not remember it; but he did not deny it took place.

    Assuming that this is true, that Keyes said he didn’t remember the exchange in January 2009, that means there’s been about a year since this happened. In the past year, Keyes has launched at least two lawsuits about Obama’s ineligibility for office. He has appeared on CNN and other media outlets to back up his assertion that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Keyes even posted a column on WND in response to Glenn Beck yesterday. Not once in the past year has he brought this alleged exchange up.

    The way this exchange is alleged to have taken place is that Keyes outright stated “You aren’t even a natural born citizen.” The people who have claimed this happened on P&E seem to remember this clearly, as though this wasn’t two people talking past each other. Apparently Keyes either hasn’t gone back and watched the recording of his own debate, or did and realized that the people bringing this up are completely making up a story and that it never happened.

    When a guy writing a letter to a pundit makes that blatant a lie in the first paragraph of the letter, you stop taking the guy seriously.

    And again, here’s the link to the C-SPAN video of the debate where this is alleged to have happened. A simple search can find the videos for the other three debates on C-SPAN’s website as well if you’re interested.

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/184058-1

  78. 01/11/2010P. Barnett says:

    Several organizations filmed the debate.. It was not a CSPAN’s video but I believe the Chicagoe League of Urban Voter’s video where Obama agreed that he was NOT a natural born citizen.

  79. 01/11/2010bystander says:

    P Barnett – source please? This is a new variation of the birther myth that will not die.

  80. 01/11/2010bystander says:

    P Barnett. The organisation you quote has 9 vidoes uploaded – none of them cover the debate in question.

  81. 01/11/2010P. Barnett says:

    Of course they won’t post that video because it is damaging to Obama.

  82. 01/12/2010qwertyman says:

    Of course they won’t post that video because it is damaging to Obama.

    There were four debates between Keyes and Obama. Unedited and complete videos of all four are on C-SPAN’s website. Think about this though. You’re saying that Obama admitted on a nationally viewed TV debate in 2004 that he wasn’t a natural born citizen. Keyes said in January 2009 he doesn’t remember this. Since then he has spoken out repeatedly, filed lawsuits, written columns and appeared on news shows to state his belief that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Not once has he mentioned this exchange. Nor has anybody else. Nor has video arisen, despite the public availability of unedited tape of all four debates.

    If you believe any of the CSPAN videos have been altered, which one? When?

    At the very least, Pidgeon should not be making assertions that he is unable to provide a shred of evidence to support. A lawyer should know better than to rely on anonymous internet rumors before writing letters for public consumption.

  83. 01/12/2010Benaiah says:

    An Open Videomail to Glenn Beck:

    Does it matter?

  84. 01/18/2010TWIKI says:

    MR BECK, CHECK OUT STEVE DUNHAM, BORN IN KENYA ON AUG.4,1961, THIS IS OBAMA’S BIRTH NAME, HE HAS 3 NAMES, STEVE DUNHAM, BARRY SOETERO, AND BARACK OBAMA. HIS MOTHER STANLEY ANN DUNHAM FILED FOR HAWAII BIRTH SHORT FORM. I JUST WISH THEY WOULD CHECK THE SCHOOLS HE WENT TO UNDER THE NAME STEVE DUNHAM, MAYBE COLUMBIA HAS MORE RECORDS THAN WE DO. THIS IS NO JOKE SIR. GOD BLESS AMERICA

  85. 09/5/2010| NwoDaily.com says:

    [...] watch the vicious attacks against eligibility attorneys Philip Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, and Mario Apuzzo. Given that many politicians lack backbone, those of us concerned about the [...]