Pat Caddell: The Media Has Become A Threat To Democracy
Pat Caddell, former political adviser to Jimmy Carter, gave a speech to the folks over at Accuracy in Media yesterday, and angrily called out the media for their lies and distortions. This is a short compilation of his speech. Below it is the full speech. Worth. Every. Minute.
© 2012, TheTamminator. All rights reserved.
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
Best Caddell quote -” Media have become the enemy of the American People”. I have the “I don’t believe the liberal media” bumper sticker but this quote would be an awesome bumper sticker. It should be our battle cry. I saw on a few websites the big story of Jake Tapper, of ABC I think, reporting the Obama administration lied about Libya. So it now makes news when a reporter actually does his job!
“NEWS”?!?! It should make Ripley’s!
Help protect the Galilee: a nonviolent means for solving this problem
Israel Ranches are being attacked, their land being stolen and their passive European cattle are being mutilated and killed by local Palestinians, jackals and wolves. Israel needs desert cattle that fits its environment and can defend it’s self and it’s calves. That breed of cattle is Texas Longhorn. The self-sustainable project will help Israel. Help us raise $240,000, to start. A 501c 3 nonprofit # 74-3177354.
This is some of the ranches under attack
http://youtu.be/hMF12Ru–yw
http://youtu.be/TGfc2oRYyxA
Thank you
Robin Rosenblatt
Israel Longhorn Project
815 Hill St Apt 5
Belmont, Ca 94002
650.631.9270
http://longhornproject.org
amazing video
208 Obama and Islam (this is part of the problem)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USCCFIOtoTk
He thinks they crossed the line only 2 weeks ago? I would contend that they crossed that line years ago.
I think he just never noticed how blatant it was because he recently left the democrats.
I’m so glad he woke up and has the courage to speak out on this. I have always respected Pat Caddell’s opinion even if i didn’t always agree with it.
Pat Caddell has spoken out frankly about the media and the left wing of the Democratic Party for a long time.
It’s much worse this cycle than in 2008…and that was the worst I’ve seen in 40 years.
Your US media has been in the bag for much longer. I remember the great mileage we got out of Walter Duranty in the 1930′s. For the price of a whore and some interviews, this one-legged diseased fool fooled the entire capitalist running-dog intelligentsia while I eliminated millions of the those pesky Kulaks. Here is a handy link in case you don’t believe me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
If you want to piss on his grave the next time you are in Orlando: http://www.greenwood-cemetery.net/
They even gave him a Pulitzer Prize which hangs to this day in lobby of my favorite publication ever, the New York Times. If I ever needed cover for any of my more audacious elimination or imperialist schemes, a couple of quick calls to my friends on staff at the Times and I got better cover than Pravda for 1/1000th the cost! I love capitalism; so much rope!
JMC is right. This premise is actually decades old.
When the voice is partisan, stop listening.
Aussie.
This is great stuff, but there are so many alternate media outlets available now that one can pretty much ignore the NYT, Wash. Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. If you check out Drudge every day, you’ll see coverage of most of these issues that Caddell brings up. So people CAN be informed if they want to take the time to do so — the question is, how many do it?
One can ignore the MSM, and one can find alternative sources — the trouble is getting there in the first place. I considered myself a right-leaning moderate for years (looking back, I was center, if not left of center), until two very opinionated friends wouldn’t give up on me and “forced” me to read an Ann Coulter book. That book was pretty much all it took for me to head to the right, but I never would’ve sought it on my own.
Caddell is a patriot period. One of the few who got into politics to serve rather than take. A democrat I’d have over for dinner. Him, Joe Lieberman, Paul McCale, Zell Miller, Artur Davis…the list could go on. there are Dems that won’t tolerate this be anymore. Glad they are on our side. The nations side.
It would be nice if some of these “patriotic” Democrats would come out publicly for Romney. If ONLY because he’s not a communist trying his best to destroy our economy & our country.
Do not get too excited about Pat Caddell. He is still a fox in sheep’s clothing. He has made a few statements regarding the polls and seems ok with the fact that they are skewed.
Here is a video clip you will never see the media present because it a collection of Obama clips showing how deeply he is rooted with Islam. I have no idea where he took history lessons from but he is seriously misinformed on Islam’s contributions to society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
I think a lot of is “knowledge” of Islam is the imprint of his early childhood in Indonesia. It didn’t seem bad to him in that time and place. He identified himself early as Muslim, and later on the Islamic identity meshed well with his Marxist anti-Americanism. I think he lacks the courage (and the intellectual integrity) to reconsider his sentimental, childlike attachment to Islam.
But one think he clearly does know about Islam: it’s a powerful tool to wield against Western and especially American culture.
In Obama’s book, “Dreams from my Father” he SPECIFICALLY said something to the effect (I don’t have the book in front of me) that if push came to shove he would stand with the Muslims. And Radegunda, Obama certainly knows enough about Islam to know that once you are a Muslim you can NEVER go back, on penalty of death. And Obama was a Muslim when he was a kid and raised in Indonesia. I think the whole Christian thing is a front because he knows he could not get elected to high office in this country as a practicing Muslim – at least not THIS year. And most American blacks are CHRISTIANS. Maybe not practicing Christians, but I live in Atlanta and work with LOTS of black people and pretty much everyone goes to some sort of Christian church.
The Republicans in Congress need to be holding formal investigations of the bias. Caddell is right…this is a danger to the Republic. It’s one thing to have rival newspapers on both sides of the ideological divide…but this is so one-sided it’s reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Problem with that: imagine the outrage that would be raised if part of the government were to “investigate” how journalists are doing their job. The government isn’t supposed to be directing the media, or punishing it for its political content.
The remedy is for conservatives to keep building their own media outlets, keep calling out the left-media, keep shaming them when they engage in journalistic fraud. This is having some effect, as confidence in the MSM has been falling.
Well I’d say thats a start. Remember the movie Quiz Show? It happened to be based on a true story. Most of us weren’t born then but it struck a nerve. It was basically about when you deconstruct it propaganda and being fed a scenario thats not true for the purpose of selling advertisments. Now that last part I disagree with. You have to sell advertising but…..the essence to me was they were lying to people about the champion, Charles van Doren had fooled everyone in the nation into believing he was as smart as he appeared. He was the son of Marc van Doren the world famous professor whose friends were literary giants of the ages. He was supposed to be that smart. The problem was is he was not, so the network sold him as such they gave him the answers. Then Herb Stemple the first man who lost to van Doren raised a ruckus because he was given the answers. Congress investigated and van Doren was forced to admit in front of the entire country that he also was given the answers as Stemple was. If congress investigated a silly game show in 1958 then why not start asking Network bosses about how the run their news divisions. It has nothing to do with free speech but it does have everything with bias and fraud.
An arm of government investigating “bias” in how media organs report on matters pertaining to government (even if the bias is real and great) is, in principle, harder to justify than an arm of government investigating provable fraud in “a silly game show”; and it would raise more serious First Amendment issues.
Remember that Dems loved the “Fairness Doctrine,” in which an agency of government claimed to be serving a high standard of justice by dictating what constituted ideological “balance” in news commentary. Conservatives said the government had no business controlling the media that way — and they were correct.
What’s the reaction among conservatives when Obama boycotts Fox because he imagines they’re unfair to him? Or when the admin. leans on Gallup because it had reported some polls that didn’t help them? Remember that he packages his media manipulation as a matter of justice and fairness.
Imagine Congress investigating the media and then pronouncing, “You’re too nice to Democrats; you’re too critical of Republicans; you’re silent on scandals that you should report every day; you’re misleading people by how you skew things.” Congress might be quite justified in those conclusions, but they would be imposing their own “Fairness Doctrine.”
Do you really want the government to decide what is fair journalism? What if Congress is controlled by Democrats?
Calling out journalistic bias and malfeasance is the job of OTHER journalists — not the government.
Sorry but I disagree. If someone whose job is very clearly stated is to report facts in an unbiased way is reporting lies, censoring storys, covering storys for favorite politicians then maybe congress should ask those questions. A hearing doesn’t mean rules would be imposed…but they would humiliate the MSM. As for other reporters. You are asking people who hunt in packs to attack each other. It doesn’t work that way.
I respect Pat Cadell, even if I don’t always agree with him. He is an honorable man and a patriot. He has been speaking out against the media and the Obama administration since the 2008 presidential election. I’ve liked a lot of what he has said the last 4 years. He doesn’t recognize the current democratic party, as his party. Unfortunately most liberals aren’t listening and it is like Pat Cadell is spitting into the wind.
Pat Cadell is from the Charleston, SC area and I have gone to Mass with him a couple of times. He is an honest liberal, not many of those left. Most liberals these days are facists like Obama is.
May I add a bit to your post? Most lefties that we HEAR ABOUT today are facists. There are innumerable silent Democrats out there who are good people, who never saw the new true face of the Democrat party, who thought that their party was good and wholesome, but now they have suddenly–and rather rudely–been awakened to realize that their party has become the enemy of America.
I think the majority of everyday Democrats have been blindsided by this election (if they weren’t already in 2008).
The ENEMEDIA is the enemy! No two ways about it!
I once called my local FOX news outlet and grilled them about how Obama is not a natural born citizen and why they didn’t cover that and his two forged birth certificates. The guy completely lied, totally lied about “being born here alone is a natural born citizen” and that they accepted Obama’s birth certificates, and when I said that the first 4 presidents were born here but were not natural born citizens because their parents were not citizens, thus the grandfather clause of article II, this news director just started yelling at me, he was supposed to spew out one talking point and he knew Obama is ineligible but he could not pass his bee ess by me and he knew he was exposed for the lying cheating SOB propaganda enemedia state-government line-pusher he was. And this was FOX.
Go ahead, try to confront any of your so-called friendly FOX news directors about how they don’t cover Obama’s true criminality and issues, they will be vicious towards you.
The enemy is SO not on America’s side. And it’s SO galling that they make a living off of screwing us over.
There are no local “Fox News” outlets. If you were talking with anyone local, it was an affiliate of the Fox Broadcasting Network. Fox News has worked with them more in recent years regarding getting local news on the Fox New Channel. But a local director of Fox is concerned only with the Fox Broadcasting Network shows and their local news staff.
This is true. And our local FOX station is as liberal as the rest of them.
Although, an example of how stupid media people can be, a “broadcast journalist” I know was offered a reporter job with the local FOX Broadcasting affiliate. He turned it down because he was worried that if he worked for them he’d never be able to get a job in a “real” news station or network because he would be “tainted” by the FOX affiliation. So this guy would rather be UNEMPLOYED than to be on air working for a local TV station that happens to broadcast “The SImpsons.”
The clause you are thinking of is “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. It’s not there because the earliest presidents’ parents weren’t natural-born citizens, it’s there because the earliest presidents weren’t natural-born citizens. When they were born, the United States of America didn’t exist. That’s the clause that covers them: “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. There is nothing in the amendment that refers to the birthplace of the president’s parents. The news director shouldn’t have yelled at you, but your statement wasn’t correct.
Huh? You wrote
“It’s not there because the earliest presidents’ parents weren’t natural-born citizens, it’s there because the earliest presidents weren’t natural-born citizens.”
I know they were only CITIZENS, not natural born citizens, that is why the grandfather clause was put in to allow citizens but only if they were born before ratification in 1787.
Just as today Article I allows CITIZENS to be in Congress or Senate but only natural born citizens can be president.
Since both a citizen can be and a natural born citizen must be born in the USA, that is not the relevant criteria of a natural born citizen: it is PARENTAL CITIZENSHIP, just as Minor v. Happersett defines it:
A natural born citizen is ‘BORN INCOUNTRY OF CITIZEN PARENTS’
Just as John Bingham, father of the 14th amendment says in the Congressional Record.
The grandfather clause presidents’ parents were not CITIZENS, they were British, even though those first presidents were born on US soil.
So being born on US soil is NOT the difference between a Citizen and a natural born citizen.
And the grandfather clause jibes perfectly with Minor v.Happersett and The Law of Nations definition of a natural born citizen, which is in Article I,Section 8.
” I know they were only CITIZENS, not natural born citizens”
We seem to agree on that. Since you told the news director that the first presidents weren’t natural-born citizens because their parents weren’t citizens, I was pointing out that that was not the reason. They weren’t natural-born citizens, solely because the USA didn’t exist when they were born. Most of the parents of the first presidents, by the way, were born in the colonies as well. The only exceptions were Jefferson (whose mother was born in England) and Jackson (whose parents emigrated from Ireland). Their parents’ birthplaces were by and large the same as theirs.
“Since both a citizen can be and a natural born citizen must be born in the USA, that is not the relevant criteria of a natural born citizen: it is PARENTAL CITIZENSHIP”
A citizen who is born in the USA is a natural-born citizen. Parental citizenship is only a factor when the person is born to American citizens but not on American soil.
“A citizen who is born in the USA is a natural-born citizen. Parental citizenship is only a factor when the person is born to American citizens but not on American soil.”
Not always, a person born in the USA with no citizen parents is a statutory citizen but not a natural born citizen.
A person born in the USA with ONE US Citizen parent is also a statutory citizen but not a natural born citizen (US Code 1401).
What you’re writing is CLASSIC OBOT DISINFORMATION, all one has to do is read the current law to see that jus soli only is NOT a natural born citizen.
In fact “natural born citizen” is left out entirely from the 14th amendment and US Code 1401, those permutations DO NOT define a natural born citizen. And the 14th’s and US Code 1401 section (a)’s “born subject to jurisdiction” was written by GOP specifically for former slaves denied US Citizenship at all (!) by democrats who defined them as livestock!! So US Code 1401 covers those born here with NO other country-affiliation, those born here with 1 US Citizen parent, or born abroad with 2 US Citizen parent…this has been stretched to include anyone just born here even with foreign parents by virtue of US v Wong Kim Ark, and ironically Ark holds that a child born with one (or two) alien parent(s) in the US is never a natural born citizen, only a citizen.
Your statement is so obviously disjointed that it doesn’t get off the ground; since both a Citizen can be and a natural born citizen MUST be born in the USA, that is not the differentiation between an Article I Citizen and an Article II natural born citizen — it is PARENTAL CITIZENSHIP…and not just one parent, both, since the law states that jus soli + 1 US Citizen parent is only a statutory citizen.
What is a Natural Born Citizen? The Supreme Court has Ruled:
Minor v. Happersett, 1875
“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.”
John Bingham, Father of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Congressional Record
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen…”
NO OTHER president other than Obama stated that any of their parents weren’t Citizens, or that they were born foreign citizens. Barack Obama admits his father was never a US Citizen, and that he was born a British Citizen on “paid for by Barack Obama” fightthesmears:
“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.”
Re Bingham. Bingham also said:
Bingham ALSO SAID:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.
More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.
And here is what Lyman Trumball said:
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschals Annotated Constitution, note 274: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” —Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Bingham, Minor strenuously defined a natural born citizen as having 2 requirements
1. Born incountry
2. of Citizen parents
So while it’s true that all NBCs are born here, that is not the sole requirement, as that fails in the differentiation of citizen v. NBC since citizens can be born here and still only be citizens. This is apparent simply by looking at modern law.
The GOP 14th amendment gave US Citizenship to former slaves, a status denied by the democrats who categorized them as livestock.
Then the Civil Rights Act of 1866 reinforced the 14th of 1868, and it was passed again in 1870 to double reinforce the notion that if you are born here but with foreign citizenship (like say an anchor baby with two Mexican parents) you can achieve citizenship through statutory means, that is to say there are “born citizens” who are citizens by statute, but they are NOT natural born citizens.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is an Act of Congress still active on the books, which very simply defines Obama as illegal.
1866 Civil Rights Act
14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
CHAP. XXXI.
An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States…
For the record, you know what this means?
Dr. Titus, J.D., Ph.D. Harvard Constitutional Law Professor (tenured) has written in agreement with Dr. Vieira JD Ph.D. that Obama is a USURPER. Illegal. Null and Void.
and you know what that means?
It means everything that SOB ever signed is ILLEGAL and will be overturned.
The truth has no shelf life!
Further, there will be OBOT disinformationists trying to confuse the subject by stating the criteria is parental birthplace, NO it’s “parental citizenship”.
A statutory US Citizen can be
born abroad with 2 US Citizen parents
born here with 1 US Citizen parent
born here with 0 US citizen parents
or
born abroad with 0 US Citizen parents and immigrate/take oath
but only a natural born citizen is both born in the USA and has 2 US Citizen parents
It is parental CITIZENSHIP, not parental birthplace which is the criteria of a natural born citizen (other than being born jus soli).
That is Titus’s opinion. He is welcome to it, but an opinion of one lawyer does not represent Constitutional law. Here is what Reagan’s attorney general and the Heritage Foundation had in their book:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
nt court rulings on presidential eligibility
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
Ed Meese, and many others, have attempted to rewrite the NBC definition over many years. They may have had in mind their pick, like a Schwarzenegger.
The 14th says you are a statutory citizen with 1 US Citizen parent + born here, and that you are a statutory citizen with 2 US Citizen parents + born abroad (like McCain — however The Law of Nations in Article I section 8 states that those children born of citizen parents “in the armies of the state” abroad are still natural born citizens…McCain’s dad was a Navy Admiral)…
so since the 14th does not define NBCs and the only omitted permutation is that of “born incountry of citizen parents” that is still obviously the definition of NBC.
The Founders based their definition of NBC off of The Law of Nations which is IN the US Constitution, which defines NBC as “born incountry of citizen parents. The Constitution was not based on British Common Law which by the way, holds that a natural born SUBJECT (not citizen) can be born ANYWHERE (so there goes the jus soli argument, but it was moot anyway).
The 14th is non-redundant; that is to say the other part of the 14th for 1 US Citizen parent + born here would be unnecessary IF the
jus soli subject to jurisdiction covered everyone just born here (remember that language from end-of-slavery era was for former slaves), and again the 14th is only for statutory citizenship, not natural born citizenship (it’s not in there, no NBC in 14th).
The grandfather clause proves this too: the first presidents were all born here but were NOT natural born citizens.
Indiana’s Ankeny even misquotes US v Wong Kim Ark.
FACE IT all of your stretches do not pass one critical factor:
mathematical logic, they all fail mathematical logic
for indeed the US Constitution still differentiates between a Citizen and a NBC, and a Citizen can be born here too (see US Code 1401 which does not define a NBC).
Dumbots cannot alter the rules of mathematical logic and this is why history will prove out what scumbags they are, they know Obama is an ineligible usurper, and all of this “stuff” is convolutions.
Again, the purity of math and logic win the day!!! Obama is historical FAIL!
And Titus is a REAL Constitutional Law Professor,not a fake trumped up summer-school part time T.A. like Obama (whose only agenda ever was to destroy the Constitution).
And still the dumbot argument fails logic in the differentiation between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
Yes the United States of America did not exist. But Americans who were born on American soil considered that they were Americans. Irish who were born in Ireland before Ireland got its independence considered that they were Irish, and Canadians who born in Canada before it got its independence considered that they were Canadians, and people who were born in India before it got its independence considered that they were Indians.
So who was the grandfather clause written for? It was written for the people who actually were not born in the one of the 13 colonies who had fought for the Revolution and who were considered likely to make good presidents. One of them was Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis and was only a naturalized US citizen, having received citizenship by being naturalized in New York state.
How can we confirm that Americans who were born in America considered themselves Americans even before the USA got independence from Britain, and considered the fact that they were born on American soil the key to being Natural Born Americans? Answer: From the way that they wrote at the time, of course.
Here is an example of how they wrote in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
That quite clearly shows that “prior to the Constitution” people already considered themselves Natural Born Citizens if they were BORN IN A STATE. There is no reason to believe that the people who were born in Colonies did not consider themselves to be Natural Born Citizens as well. So, who were not Natural Born Citizens? Obviously the people who were US citizens but not born in a colony. And that was why the Grandfather Clause was written, to allow Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson and other American leaders who were not born on US soil to be eligible to be president.
The meaning of Natural Born clearly comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of US-born citizens.
Actually, the guy you spoke to at Fox News is right, and not lying.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth. It does not refer to the parents of a US-born citizen.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
For further information on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, see:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/s…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
And:
http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/24/en…
And:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.co…
And:
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirt…
Place of birth is one third of the definition of NBC per The Law of Nations (article I section 8), Minor v. Happersett, Civil Rights Act of 1866, US Code 1401 etc.
“Born incountry of citizen parents” is the definition of NBC, and none other. No other definition passes mathematical logic muster.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling was AFTER the Minor v Happersett ruling, and it ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth (not the parents). Neither Vattel nor his book THE (capitalized T in The) was referred to even once in the Federalist Papers, but the common law was referred to about twenty times.
For confirmation, here are two examples of the way Natural Born Citizen was used at about the time the Constitution was written:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”
And this from 1829, by a man who had been friends with several of the writers of the Constitution.
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
That is why the Wong Kim Ark ruling said that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law, not from Vattel’s book (which by the way did not have the words Natural Born Citizen in any English-language translation until ten years after the Constitution was written). And that is why Meese had what he had in his book. And that is why seven state courts and one federal court have ruled on Obama that the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision applies, and that refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH, and one has done so with regard to McCain, and NONE have backed the two-parent myth.
I really like Pat Caddell’s honest liberal political viewpoint and the extensive experience he has with Leftists. He realizes the ramifications of a press which acts on behalf on the government to disseminatie propaganda and lies without any regard for the truth. And what he said about Governor Palin and how she was thrown to the hyenas in the media by people who knew better, really still upsets me.
I can not stand to even look at Katie Couric, I call her Katie Clownface. After how she and other media scum went after Sarah Palin, when they would ask the president easy breezy questions about his family and the challenges he faces as a father, husband, and world leader. Yet, they showed none of the same respect or courtesy to Governor Palin. The media did not care about her family. They attacked her and her family shamelessly and relentlessly.
There are hundreds of examples of the Left’s stark-raving mad vitriol and hatred, but one story comes to mind, Leftist freaks actually wanted to throw things at little Trig, to hurt him! These lowlife scumbags wanted to hurt and injure a baby! While at the Mall of America, one loser tried to throw tomatoes to hit that sweet innocent baby, but being that there is a God and the loser being a loser he is, he missed Trig and instead hit a police officer who arrested him.
That’s why Univision’s interview was so priceless; they didn’t ask Obama what his favorite crayon color was and he came off like the dolt he really is.
A Harry Truman type …. and thats OK.
Ugh! Katie Couric! I read that now that she has her own daytime talk show for women she’s trying to channel Oprah. I don’t think it even took a week before she was “confessing” that she was bulimic when she was a teenager. She said it would be “dishonest” to do a show with a young actress who is/was bulimic without “confessing” her own “battle” with bulimia. What a bunch of horse puckey. What’s next? She’ll “confess” that she was molested as a kid so she can sit and cry with a guest and get all this “sympathy” from her all-too-gullible audience?
I’ve got news for you Katie. We are the same age and grew up in the same part of the country. NOBODY was bulimic when we were kids. We didn’t even know what it was. I suspect your love affair with bulimia probably started when you got on national TV and the powers-that-be at NBC told you you were too fat, but you aren’t willing to “confess” that you were bulimic as an ADULT. ‘Cause that would be stoopid!
Reading Kitty Kelley’s biography of Oprah, she said Oprah’s family was really pissed at her because she kept “confessing” all of this crap that wasn’t true, making her family look really bad. It was all to make her comfortable middle-class upbringing look instead like she grew up poor and black in the Jim Crow south. It was all BS, just like her entire life. And the stupid women who watch the stupid daytime talk shows just ate it up with a spoon, like the media.
Can you print addresses where we can complain to the most biased sources? (Might be difficult to find who is most biased.) I’d like to blast them with a large number of letters setting out facts and my dissatisfaction with their “reporting.” Anybody else out there interested in joining in?
TheObamaFile.com has a whole “media malfeasance” thread.
http://theobamafile.websitetoolbox.com/post/Media-malfeasance-thread-5747993
The enemedia just lie with such impunity, they’re disgusting and vile.
Remember the days of the rabbit ear antenna and reporters actually reporting? Now they have people who are as dumb as a box of rocks reading off the pre-approved government spew lines, or if they’re really intrepid they’ll run their story by a government official for approval. America’s enemedia is 10,000X worse than Pravda ever was.
I always wondered if the air-wave TV was ended so that total control could be had over the cable-only version. I canceled my cable and I sure don’t miss it! It was either infomercials, commercials, reruns, the same movie replays, dumb TV series, or stoopid “news” talking heads who said (amazingly) identical lines about the government no matter what channel you were on, and if they weren’t kissing Obama’s ass they were going on ad nauseum about a light local story or celebrity — nothing but misdirection and distraction from the crash and burn of the country. I wasn’t going to pay for cable when someone should pay me to have to watch their crap.
Bravo Pat Caddell. Nowhere is the criminal behavior of the MSM more prevalent than Chicago. Case in point. The cozy set up between the Chicago Tribune and the DoJ
“Golden,” the whitewashing of a Department of Justice crime spree
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2012/09/16/golden-the-whitewashing-of-a-department-of-justice-crime-spree/
Bravo to Mr. Caddell. The 2008 election is proof enough that the media isn’t doing his job. Had Obama been a Republican, they would have been all over his past associations. They questioned Palin’s “experience” to be VP, but never questioned if a guy who had been a US Senator for three years was qualified for the top of the ticket.
And to an earlier commenter who labeled modern day leftists as fascists- I couldn’t agree more. They want to dictate how others should live their lives- especially what people eat. They want to silence those who don’t agree with them. Not to mention the creepy cult of personality of Obama four years ago.
Guys that file and list? Thats what we should be adding to the twitter time lines of Mark Halprin, Chuck Todd, Joe Scarborough, Mark Knoller etc. Seriously. FILL THEIR TWITTER TIME LINES!
MSNBC: Yesterday was reporting on how “Desperate” Gov. Romney was becoming. They were at a rally in Ohio and reported that the crowd was chanting “Ryan, Ryan, Ryan” after his speech and that Gov. Romney got up to the mic and corrected them by saying that they should be saying, ” Romney, Ryan, Romney, Ryan”, making it out to look like he was jealous that they were chanting for Ryan and leaving him out. But…..a woman who was actually at the rally in question, called the Glenn Beck Show and told Stu that they were actually chanting “Romney, Romney, Romney” after Ryan’s speech. Romney took the mic and corrected them by saying that it should be “Romney, Ryan, Romney Ryan”. This is despicable! Even the NYT and Huffington Post reported that MSNBC did this! They are the absolute worst. NBC should be ashamed of themselves. Glenn was so mad and although he was the target of many boycotts himself, and said that he doesn’t believe in boycotts, he said that anyone who believes ANYTHING that NBC says is NOT GETTING the TRUE STORY.
Comcast bought NBC and I thought that things would change in the News Department. NOPE! I think that it’s time for me to cancel Comcast and switch to Dish, which now carries Glen Becks TV programming, The Blaze TV.
I heard a guy call Rush’s show and talk about the same thing. Here’s a clip that Herman Cain sent me:
http://www.caintv.com/MSNBCbusteddoctoringRomneyclip-490
Gov Romney needs to channel Newt this week during the debate. If he follows Newt’s advice and calls out the media as well as Obama it will be a thrilling debate. Pat also gave Gov Romney great advice. You won’t look like a whinner when calling out the media if you are defending the American people our liberty from tyranny.
If this were a republican president, the media would have been talking about all the US embassies afire and under seige across the Mideast as well as Taiwan and china and what the presidents foreign policy did to bring this upon us. But since Obama is president he and his foreign policy are afforded a deafening sound of crickets by the MSM. Pat cadell is so right.
I agree with everything he said INCLUDING the part about the Romney campaign. They are trying to politely fight this battle with a nerf ball while the Obama and media are using machetes and assault weapons. We needed Newt–he would not have taken this crap. Obama will shut down the free exchange of information within one year of re-election—just watch. Our Founders are churning in their graves.