Skip to comments.Attorney Stephen Pidgeon to Glenn Beck
Posted on 01/05/2010 7:16:47 PM PST by Man50D
Attorney Stephen Pidgeon is one of the lawyers involved in the B.C. issue. He is currently working with Leo Donofrio on the Chrysler lawsuit. Below is his letter to Glenn Beck. Great job, Stephen! S.B.
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 wasnt a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.
Lets see you deal with this one. There is nothing nutty about it, and it doesnt 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 doesnt understand the constitution; why he wants to give us Britains health care system (its all in the teeth, dont 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 peoples 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 historys most reviled figures on a par with Nero as a fool who couldnt 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.
Contributing member: Glenn Beck, 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.
And what about the other documents that he refuses to release? Is he above the law? This is about more than a birth certificate!
I'll say it again...This is the distraction within the "records" issue. The "birth certificate controversy" is the sacrificial pawn to keep attention away from the rest of the records that have never been released.
Nope, Nope, Yep, Yep
Here ya go...
AP, NYT AND POLITICS.CO.UK MISTATE LAW AND FACTS IN DEC. 1ST REPORTS
The truth of law and history is, however, that a natural born citizen, according to the manner in which this term was intended in the U.S. Constitution, and in 4 Supreme Court Cases ("IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN"), is one who is born in the U.S.A. of two parents, each of which was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth. Obama, by the very public fact that he claims a British subject, as his father, was not, is not, and can never be a natural born citizen of the United States, even if he is a citizen thereof. This legal and historical fact makes his presidency invalid, all his presidential acts unlawful, and his entrance into the office unconstitutional and a usurpation.
I like this one the most...
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Yet despite my giving these excellent links and articles I get the feeling that you'll find some more ice to skate on, even if it's thin.
BTW, before you go there...I can’t find that any of the cases have been overturned.
So then, by your line of desperate reasoning, if a bank robber robs a bank and is never caught, then he never robbed the bank, right???
Are you for real here. You Obamanoids have truly descended to the lowest levels of desperation to try to defend your Desperado in Chief. From the moment he announced for the office of POTUS, people with the Constitution in one hand, the facts of his birth in the other, and a brain above, were questioning his qualifications.
"citizens" not "natural born citizens". Congratulations, you just shot a hole in your own desperate argument.
To take an example out of a recent film, “Inglorious Basterds” these obots in the future will be taking their uniforms off, but how will we still identify them?
They shall have the mark upon their foreheads, it may be a figurative mark but it will be a permanent one that any person will immediately recognize.
Animals can smell evil, its been said humans do to a point when they are capable of their faculties. This is a warning of the most severe type to the obots, what you do today will remain with you forever.
Ohhh -- so then the U.S. Senate never unanimously approved Senate resolution SR511 back in 2008 regarding the issue of McCain's natural born citizenship??? Is that what you're claiming???
The only time in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the words "natural born" appear in the decision is here...
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "
And that is only in reference to a pamphlet, to wit...
Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853...
Hey, LorenC, your "hearing" may be challenged, but how is your "seeing".
You see, it was called a "hearing" and it was real and it took place, and it determined that McCain was a natural born citizen because he had American citizens [plural] for parents -- something that Obama lacks no matter how you Obamanoids want to slice and dice it.
That might be persuasive...if you hadn't simply made it up. All it takes is a visit to the U.S. Archives to see that you're just lying now:
Did you think I wouldn't check the actual text of Constitution, and would just assume you were telling the truth about the Founders writing in ALL CAPS?
It was no slip up by the DNC...
Ah, I see. You don't actually have an answer to why no one alleged Obama was ineligible until summer 2008, so instead you're trying to change the subject entirely to paperwork filed by the DNC in August 2008. Shrewd, but it's a technique I've seen Birthers use all too often before.
That's a pretty inapposite analogy (not the least because unlike a missing bank robber, Obama's identity and location are hardly in doubt, making the "never caught" aspect totally off), but if I had to make it parallel the facts of Obama's eligibility, it'd go something like this:
A man publicly announces that he's going to rob a bank. When and where. He becomes a nationally known figure, and his autobiography about his dreams of bank-robbing becomes a bestseller. His relationship to that particular bank-robbery is mentioned in practically every background story on him. No one ever does anything to stop him. Finally, he robs the bank, as promised. Everyone knew he was going to, and now everyone knows he has.
And the legal system's response is...absolutely nothing. The bank doesn't report a robbery, the police don't record one, the feds don't investigate, and the US Attorney doesn't prosecute. They don't even acknowledge that a bank was ever robbed, though the guy is still a national figure and still talks about taking the money.
That's your analogy for you. The fact that it plays out rather absurdly is due to it being such a poor analogy to begin with.
From the moment he announced for the office of POTUS, people with the Constitution in one hand, the facts of his birth in the other, and a brain above, were questioning his qualifications.
Again, that's just untrue.
Obama announced his run for the Presidency in February 2007. No one, anywhere, was questioning the facts of his birth until March 2008, and no one alleged that his father's Kenyan nationality made him Constitutionally ineligible until June 2008.
I know you'd like to push back the dates of when all this started, and pretend like it didn't begin over a year into his campaign, but you're wrong.
OK, let's go back and look at what MHGinTN originally wrote, and to which I responded:
"When the Senate held hearings regarding McCains natural born citizenship, there was no question that both his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth. For some reason unfathomable to Drew69, the Senate wanted to confirm the other leg of eligibility in the framers sense, whether he was born on American land. So, the stupid Senate was following the Vattel definition in their hearings..."
First, there were no "hearings." I've read enough posts about Vattel to know y'all love your plurals, and "hearings" certainly means "more than one hearing."
Second, MHGinTN wrote "the Senate held hearings regarding McCains natural born citizenship." No they didn't. McCain's natural born citizenship was mentioned in a single question-and-answer in a wholly unrelated Judiciary Committee hearing.
Here is the transcript of that hearing, from April 2, 2008. The title of the hearing is "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security." It's 350 pages of oral testimony and attached documentation about the Department of Homeland Security. The only talk of Presidential eligibility comes on numbered page 12, right as Leahy wraps up a round of questioning. "McCain" is mentioned by name precisely once in the entire hearing.
So if you want to look at one question and one one-sentence answer, in a hearing entitled "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security," where McCain wasn't questioned or even present, where there was no evidence presented, and the only person who gave any testimony was the Secretary of Homeland Security, and declare that it's not misleading or inaccurate to say that that constitutes that "the Senate held hearings regarding McCains natural born citizenship," then be my guest.
Third, MHGinTN wrote "For some reason unfathomable to Drew69, the Senate wanted to confirm the other leg of eligibility in the framers sense, whether he was born on American land." Check the transcript. That's just false. The Senate didn't "confirm" anything. They didn't question where he was born. It was just accepted as a fact. The reasonable it's unfathomable is because the Senate didn't do it.
If a tree falls in the woods and you don’t hear it, did it fall???
If a hearing takes place in the Senate, and you deny it, did the hearing take place???