Pidgeon Responds to Beck’s “Birther” Comments

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

85 thoughts on “Pidgeon Responds to Beck’s “Birther” Comments”

  1. Pingback: | NwoDaily.com
  2. 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

  3. 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.

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. “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.

  10. 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…

  11. 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.

  12. 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/

  13. 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

  14. “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”

  15. 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.”

  16. 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]

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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?

  22. “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.”

  23. 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.)

  24. 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?

  25. 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.

  26. 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?

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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?

  30. 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!

  31. 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.

Comments are closed.