Beck Benches “Question With Boldness”; While U.S. Congressman Asks Boldly
On the same day a U.S. congressman called for Barack Obama to prove his Constitutional eligibility for the office of President, Glenn Beck returned to the airwaves after the Christmas holiday, shocking a number of his listeners when he ridiculed callers who undertook a concerted effort to push the question of Obama’s status as a natural born citizen.
GLENN: May I go out onto this conspiratorial limb, please. If I’m Barack Obama which I want you to know I’m not, but if I yes, you haven’t seen us at parties together, I know. But let’s say I were Barack Obama and I had somebody who was forwarding a conspiracy like this.
PAT: And looking stupid doing it?
GLENN: Yeah. And then my advisors would come in and go, let’s just make this go away. Here’s an idea: Just call the doctor, just get the nurse. Just, here, let’s just have, you know, three really credible people examine the birth certificate because really let’s just make this go away so we can get on the work with the American people. If I were Barack Obama, I would say, no, now, wait a minute; why do that when these people are so discrediting themselves because if I can get them to discredit themselves and they’ll use the argument, “Well, you think it’s nonsense to have him answer that question when it’s in the Constitution? He would be the first unconstitutional president!” Yes. But I believe he already is, seeing that healthcare is against the Constitution. The fundamental transformation of the country is a little unconstitutional.
STU: Right. When you’ve lost 40 points off your approval rating, the only thing you have left is the people who are coming out and yelling about your birth certificate. The only positive this guy has left.
GLENN: Yeah. So why would you discredit yourself? Why would let’s say it’s true. Let’s just say it’s true that he’s not. Do you really think that is the fastest way to get him out? Do you really think that’s the fastest way to stop him from what I believe is the fundamental transformation of this country? Do you think that’s going to stop healthcare?
The conversation came around to the eligibility issue, one that’s been labeled with the “birther” pejorative, and I questioned why highly successful radio and TV personalities like Glenn Beck will not seriously address the question.
“Why is it that there are some on the Right who absolutely will not entertain any notion whatsoever about the Constitutional eligibility of this president, and castigate or ridicule those who do?” I asked.
JB Williams
“I will say this, and I think that’s where some of this comes from on the Right, especially when you get to people like Rush or Hannity or Beck or high profile, high dollar celebrities, cause that’s what we’re talking about in those groups. How can I can get away with saying what I say? Because I don’t have multi-million dollar contracts to protect.
“I’m gonna offer you a potential answer. I don’t know the answer any more than you do, but have some thoughts about it. And the first is, they have multi-million dollar contracts to protect. They’re gonna lose their jobs and their million dollar homes and book deals and their private jet trips if they talk about things the boss doesn’t want anybody talking about. That’s number one.”
The “Great One”, Jackie Gleason understood that, telling 60 Minutes’ Morley Safer how television executives get you to do whatever they want (at 2:45 into the clip).
So why don’t their bosses want them talking about it? Do they have a vested interest in Obama not being removed from office because of an eligibility question? Again, JB Williams’ take:
“Absolutely. And much more than that. They are international corporations in every instance. They have international boards in every instance. They have international interests, in every instance. And they are not a free press the way Jefferson spoke about a free press 200 and some odd years ago.”
In “Are Americans Too Stupid to Run Their Own Country?”, an article that appeared in Canada Free Press, Williams wrote that only a handful of corporations control the flow of information in America:
General Electric – NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Universal Pictures, Universal TV, Telemundo Communications Group, Vivendi Universal, Sony and Liberty Media.
Time Warner – CNN, HBO, Headline News, TBS, TNT, Court TV, WB, Tribune Co., AOL, Time, Fortune, Money, People, Parenting, American Family Publishers, and much more.
Viacom – CBS, UPN, MTV, BET, VH-1, CMT, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Spike, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, Infinity radio broadcasting and American Radio Systems, Simon & Schuster.
Disney – ABC, ABC News, History Channel, A&E, Lifetime, Fox Family Networks, Disney, Touchtone, Hollywood, Miramax, Fairchild Publications and Chilton Publications.
News Corp. – Fox, Fox News, TCF Holdings, Twentieth Century Fox, Triangle Publications, Harper Collins.
Just four newspaper organizations control the print media: Gannett, Knight Ridder, New York Times Co., and Tribune Co.
Even fewer in radio: Clear Channel, Infinity, and Cumulus.
“These companies represent the vast majority of American print, TV, radio and movie media and they are all owned or controlled by one or more of the five corporations above. Even worse is the fact that all others re-print or regurgitate their so-called “independent” reporting from these industry powerhouses.”
Do the five media giants in control of public information flow, have a common agenda? Williams answers with questions of his own.
“Who tells the American people that “illegal aliens” are “undocumented immigrants”? Who covers our headlines with anti-American, pro-global / pro-United Nations drivel? Who tells us that our soldiers are “terrorists”, or that terrorists are “freedom fighters” or so-called “insurgents”? Who sells abortion as a “right of privacy”, free religious speech as a violation of the First Amendment and federal dependency on the whole? Does Hollywood have a clear agenda? Yes and so do the companies that own Hollywood.”
Follow the money.
“Four of the five corporations and all of their sub-corporations are heavily invested in one (1) political party. Any guesses which one? Only one of the media giants invests almost equally in both parties, slanted slightly to the right, and any American can guess which one that is. (All according to the FEC)”
Why won’t Congress investigate the eligibility question?
“Number two, and probably at the end of the day a larger factor is the fact that if it’s true — and it is — that he is Constitutionally ineligible for the office he currently holds, then it is also true that the vice president is ineligible because he’s part of that fraud.
“It is also true that the Speaker of the House is ineligible because she’s a part of that fraud. It is also true that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is ineligible because she’s also a part of that fraud. And that list is so long that nobody, including me, could tell you how to unravel that and how to take that fraud apart and put the country back together before the country collapses.
“Unfortunately it’s not just the Left — the extreme Left that is damaging to this country at the moment. There are people on the Right that are equally damaging.”
Leaving one to conclude that there are more powerful forces in play than just the suspected usurper in the White House who have everything to gain by making sure the eligibility issue is never broached, much less investigated.
“The truth is, it doesn’t matter where he was born. It matters that his father was never an American citizen. …And as long as people are chasing around a birth certificate, you cannot get around to talking about what we need to talk about in that regard.”
Nathan Deal, U.S. Representative for Georgia, is running for Georgia Governor in 2010.
“Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America.
“The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.”
So, what does this mean?
“This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president… one full year into his term.
As far as we are concerned and as far as all known sealed evidence as per this day, The US President Barack Obama is not an American citizen. Debate on the subject will continue until Obama himself decides to come out and tell the people what he himself knows to be the truth. The American people deserve to be given answers when they ask questions. Of course there is fear now. If the contrary to what the White House has said is now said then there will be a problem because The President may have to face impeachment. The country is not prepared for this because any attempt to impeach Obama will most probably cause instability in the country.
In our earlier articles, we came out near factual, according to evidence given to us, that the President is said to have been born in Mombasa in Kenya. It will not matter actually where the man was born as long as his father was a Kenyan citizen. In many countries you belong to your father’s corner when citizenship becomes an issue. There is no difference here when it comes to being born to a Kenyan father. And if one is adopted by another nationality, that does not mean you loose your father’s citizenship unless you apply for naturalization to follow your new father, a thing that has not been pointed out by the White House when they come out to tell the public that Obama is American citizen. It may now be the time for those interested to study, know and get the truth as potrayed by the Mombasa Imam’s documents in order to satisfy their curiosity on the matter thereafter putting it top rest once and for all.
Obama is doing well now in the White House. The question, therefore, is whether it is right to open up wounds by proving Obama’s citizenship, a thing that may highten temperatures in the US. May be the Americans should accept the President and wait until his term is over.
A former talk radio host turned political activist, diving deep into the intricacies of political warfare and sharing insights on the shadow government and 5th Generation Psy-Ops. RadioPatriot's been diving into political intrigue, from FBI hearings to questioning staged events.
Twitter.com/RadioPatriot * Telegram/Radiopatriot * Telegram/Andrea Shea King
Gettr/radiopatriot * TRUTHsocial/Radiopatriot
I think the writer has a keen insight about the media. As far as we cannot do anything about it is totally wrong. The bigger question are we willing to do it. I emailed you a way out of this mess a couple of weeks ago. Won’t go into it here. While I have a select few on board, the major component is simply not talking. Sometimes we come to a point in the road where we have to decide to turn left or turn right. We are at the point. The direction we turn depends on how bad we want our country and our Constitution restored.
Obama has already proved that he is a Natural Born Citizen of the USA by proving that he was born in Hawaii. He showed the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii, and the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration.
The Wall Street Journal commented: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
Clearly, and sadly, you are unaware of the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Further, it is doubtful that he is even a NATURALIZED American citizen, as there are no records indicating that he either filed an application to become one, or made any statement of allegiance after he had been an Indonesian citizen traveling on an Indonesian passport in the ’80s.
A Natural Born Citizen requires that one be born of TWO American Citizens; one CAN BECOME an American citizen under the 14th Amendment by being naturalized as foreign born immigrants can, or by being born on American soil as an “anchor baby”, or from ONE American citizen, but they CANNOT be NATURAL BORN CITIZENS UNLESS THEY ARE BORN OF TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS ON AMERICAN SOIL.
Check Vattel’s work on this–it is from Vattel that our forefathers drew their legal precedent.
To be “natural born” according to many Constitutional scholars, a child would need to have two parents who were both U.S. citizens. (The authors of Senate Resolution 511 that was passed on April 30, 2008 would also seem to be based on a similar understanding of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”)
While Mr. Obama’s long birth certificate, if it is ever produced, may eventually provide definitive proof that he was born in Hawaii; this would not prove his eligibility to be President. It would prove that he was a “native born” citizen. He would still not be a “natural born citizen” so long as his father was Barack Obama Sr.. He would still be a dual citizen at birth and therefore unable to qualify for the Presidency under the “natural born” citizenship clause of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Even if it were to turn out that Mr. Obama’s father had been a U.S. citizen at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth, the questions about his eligibility would not end in that Mr. Obama’s citizenship status between the time that he was adopted in Indonesia and the present time would still be in question.
Many people, Glenn Beck included, appear to conflate the terms “native born” with “natural born”. Many people, however, do not seem to know, that the terms cannot be used as if they were synonyms. Indeed, a ruling by the Courts is evidently going to be needed in order to ascertain what the Founders meant when they used the term “natural born” in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. If one uses Vattel’s The Law of Nations as a key to the meaning of the term “natural born” at the time of the Founding, one sees that the term is not at all the same as “native born.” In fact, Governor Jindal’s eligibility may well also be questioned should he run for President since neither of his parents were naturalized American citizens at the time of his birth in the U.S. The Governor’s parents became naturalized citizens after he was born.
I have tried to clarify these matters on my http://eligibilityquestions.com website. I hope readers find the website helpful and informative.
Strange how we didn’t find out about the letter until 30+ days later?
So he showed his Birth Certificate to who? You mean his CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH? Which isn’t good enough to get you an ID at the DMV let alone pass the sniff test. Here’s how it works, you have a Birth Certificate, Certificate of Live Birth, and a Certification of Live Birth in Hawaii; in that order. Also note Hawaii has now recently changed (surprise) their wording/workings of the terms of these three documents so it will appear that Certification of Live Birth is now a Certificate of Live Birth. (And I bet you didn’t hear that on CNN huh?) Don’t believe me, go look it up, as a matter of fact those that are in still denial please start thinking for yourselves)
Here’s another correction from the cheap seats. Usurper’s aren’t impeached from office; because the impeachment process is for legit members of government; not impostors. Usurpers are escorted out of the white house in cuffs. We cannot depend on the lamestream media to gather any of this information. The fact that those networks run just about everything in TV and Print is our first clue.
You don’t spent almost 200 million dollars if you have nothing to hide.
And shame on the Judges that are tossing out these cases without even listening to the facts involved. We are still a nation of Laws aren’t we?
“If the contrary to what the White House has said is now said then there will be a problem because The President may have to face impeachment. The country is not prepared for this because any attempt to impeach Obama will most probably cause instability in the country.”
I totally disagree with this statement. If you break the law-you are a criminal, you must take the consequences. Nixon and Clinton both faced impeachment. Somehow the country survived.
When I was a kid I was involved in the civil rights movement. Equal opportunity for all-American citizens. We have to treat all people re:race, creed the same. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Having a usurper in the White House is the cause of instability and is a national disgrace and the biggest security risk that anyone can imagine. Spy?, Enemy?, Blackmail? Who knows? and lying doesn’t make the issue go away.
The facts on the document, that Obama was born in Hawaii, were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration. And, there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth (because she wrote to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth that day (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)
The Wall Street Journal commented: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.
The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.”
Re: “Check Vattel’s work on this–it is from Vattel that our forefathers drew their legal precedent.”
They did not draw their precedent from Vattel. They drew it from the British common law. They were lawyers, not philosophers, and they did not follow much of what Vattel recommended. The common meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply “born in the country.” It was a synonym for Native Born, which was seldom used at the time.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
The Wall Street Journal wrote: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”
Oh, and NEITHER of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens. Some say that they were naturalized citizens, but there is no proof of this, and it is highly unlikely.
Unfortunately for Mr Beck, his truncation of the Jefferson quote that begins “Question with boldness” twists the president’s words to his own requirements. The actual Jefferson quote is: “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
Quite a bit different than Mr Beck surely intended.
I think the writer has a keen insight about the media. As far as we cannot do anything about it is totally wrong. The bigger question are we willing to do it. I emailed you a way out of this mess a couple of weeks ago. Won’t go into it here. While I have a select few on board, the major component is simply not talking. Sometimes we come to a point in the road where we have to decide to turn left or turn right. We are at the point. The direction we turn depends on how bad we want our country and our Constitution restored.
Obama has already proved that he is a Natural Born Citizen of the USA by proving that he was born in Hawaii. He showed the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii, and the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration.
The Wall Street Journal commented: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
Clearly, and sadly, you are unaware of the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Further, it is doubtful that he is even a NATURALIZED American citizen, as there are no records indicating that he either filed an application to become one, or made any statement of allegiance after he had been an Indonesian citizen traveling on an Indonesian passport in the ’80s.
A Natural Born Citizen requires that one be born of TWO American Citizens; one CAN BECOME an American citizen under the 14th Amendment by being naturalized as foreign born immigrants can, or by being born on American soil as an “anchor baby”, or from ONE American citizen, but they CANNOT be NATURAL BORN CITIZENS UNLESS THEY ARE BORN OF TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS ON AMERICAN SOIL.
Check Vattel’s work on this–it is from Vattel that our forefathers drew their legal precedent.
To be “natural born” according to many Constitutional scholars, a child would need to have two parents who were both U.S. citizens. (The authors of Senate Resolution 511 that was passed on April 30, 2008 would also seem to be based on a similar understanding of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”)
While Mr. Obama’s long birth certificate, if it is ever produced, may eventually provide definitive proof that he was born in Hawaii; this would not prove his eligibility to be President. It would prove that he was a “native born” citizen. He would still not be a “natural born citizen” so long as his father was Barack Obama Sr.. He would still be a dual citizen at birth and therefore unable to qualify for the Presidency under the “natural born” citizenship clause of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Even if it were to turn out that Mr. Obama’s father had been a U.S. citizen at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth, the questions about his eligibility would not end in that Mr. Obama’s citizenship status between the time that he was adopted in Indonesia and the present time would still be in question.
Many people, Glenn Beck included, appear to conflate the terms “native born” with “natural born”. Many people, however, do not seem to know, that the terms cannot be used as if they were synonyms. Indeed, a ruling by the Courts is evidently going to be needed in order to ascertain what the Founders meant when they used the term “natural born” in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. If one uses Vattel’s The Law of Nations as a key to the meaning of the term “natural born” at the time of the Founding, one sees that the term is not at all the same as “native born.” In fact, Governor Jindal’s eligibility may well also be questioned should he run for President since neither of his parents were naturalized American citizens at the time of his birth in the U.S. The Governor’s parents became naturalized citizens after he was born.
I have tried to clarify these matters on my http://eligibilityquestions.com website. I hope readers find the website helpful and informative.
Andrea, terrific show, terrific post and terrific guest! JB is a brilliant American Patriot!
Together we CAN take back our country!
Best,
The Dame;)
Good article.
Strange how we didn’t find out about the letter until 30+ days later?
So he showed his Birth Certificate to who? You mean his CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH? Which isn’t good enough to get you an ID at the DMV let alone pass the sniff test. Here’s how it works, you have a Birth Certificate, Certificate of Live Birth, and a Certification of Live Birth in Hawaii; in that order. Also note Hawaii has now recently changed (surprise) their wording/workings of the terms of these three documents so it will appear that Certification of Live Birth is now a Certificate of Live Birth. (And I bet you didn’t hear that on CNN huh?) Don’t believe me, go look it up, as a matter of fact those that are in still denial please start thinking for yourselves)
Here’s another correction from the cheap seats. Usurper’s aren’t impeached from office; because the impeachment process is for legit members of government; not impostors. Usurpers are escorted out of the white house in cuffs. We cannot depend on the lamestream media to gather any of this information. The fact that those networks run just about everything in TV and Print is our first clue.
You don’t spent almost 200 million dollars if you have nothing to hide.
And shame on the Judges that are tossing out these cases without even listening to the facts involved. We are still a nation of Laws aren’t we?
“If the contrary to what the White House has said is now said then there will be a problem because The President may have to face impeachment. The country is not prepared for this because any attempt to impeach Obama will most probably cause instability in the country.”
I totally disagree with this statement. If you break the law-you are a criminal, you must take the consequences. Nixon and Clinton both faced impeachment. Somehow the country survived.
When I was a kid I was involved in the civil rights movement. Equal opportunity for all-American citizens. We have to treat all people re:race, creed the same. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Having a usurper in the White House is the cause of instability and is a national disgrace and the biggest security risk that anyone can imagine. Spy?, Enemy?, Blackmail? Who knows? and lying doesn’t make the issue go away.
Re: “You mean his CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH? Which isn’t good enough to get you an ID at the DMV….”
It is good enough to get you a driver’s license and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department. It is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the only one that Hawaii sends out (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).
The facts on the document, that Obama was born in Hawaii, were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration. And, there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth (because she wrote to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth that day (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)
The Wall Street Journal commented: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.
The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.”
Re: “Check Vattel’s work on this–it is from Vattel that our forefathers drew their legal precedent.”
They did not draw their precedent from Vattel. They drew it from the British common law. They were lawyers, not philosophers, and they did not follow much of what Vattel recommended. The common meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply “born in the country.” It was a synonym for Native Born, which was seldom used at the time.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
The Wall Street Journal wrote: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”
Oh, and NEITHER of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens. Some say that they were naturalized citizens, but there is no proof of this, and it is highly unlikely.
Operation “Flood it” forced Beck to make these comments and Operation “Flood It 2” will be on Jan. 20th 2010
http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/01/09/operation-flood-it-2–jan-20th-2010–make-viral.aspx
Glenn Beck & Bill O’ Reilly stating Obama born in Hawaii, offer no proof
Unfortunately for Mr Beck, his truncation of the Jefferson quote that begins “Question with boldness” twists the president’s words to his own requirements. The actual Jefferson quote is: “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
Quite a bit different than Mr Beck surely intended.