No, I am not and would never wish to be a professional lawyer. I detest neckties and eschew those who adorn pencil necks with the infernal contraptions; but I could steer you to several who vehemently disagree with your opinion. They no doubt would be delighted and honored to be interviewed by an imminent professional journalist; another honorific I thankfully can't claim. Nor am I a professional pundit; but I am a voracious reader, a consummate thinker, and a professional red-blooded American Patriot, which gives me every right to an informed opinion or two of my own.
We are the same age and ever since I read your first book, I have always appreciated your willingness to speak your truth to power, regardless of the social consequences. I reckon you to be a good guy; so I would like to believe that you do not intend to insult my intelligence with your knee-jerk dismissive attitude toward anyone still questioning Obama's eligibility for the office of POTUS. For me, the place and/or documentation of his birth were never issues; but his manifest ineligibility was and still is.
Unlike many, I choose not to believe that you, of all people, are part of some media conspiracy to ignore and/or obscure the increasingly obvious fact that Obama is indeed ineligible; and that we are now facing a Constitutional crisis, which could have been easily avoided had, before his election, the Fourth Estate properly done their jobs. Concurring with your frequent observation that the myopic Left-leaning press is not a cabal, but simply creatures of their environs, I suspect a similar handicap; because you undoubtedly share my disdain for wild conspiracy theories, and grow weary of their fanatical proponents.
They appear to waste their time, and try to waste ours, with ever increasingly fantastical claims, which are easily refuted with only a modicum of research. E.g. I am so turned-off by the so-called 'Truther' crowd, that my mind immediately snaps shut every time I encounter one. I long ago looked into many of their claims, applied a little critical thinking, and dismissed the subject as silly. The risk, of course, is that there might be a kernel of truth being obscured by the overwhelming nonsense, which my prejudices may now never allow me to discover.
I could readily accept the idea of a coverup of foreknowledge of the plot; but to suggest that GWB et al planned the attack and had demolition charges awaiting it, stretches credulity beyond the limits of my imagination. Perhaps you share a similar prejudice toward some of the dimwits in the so-called 'Birther' movement (I shall hereinafter refer to it as the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) controversy), who have propagated some ridiculous and easily refutable nonsense. However, much of it may just be carelessly parroted disinformation, deliberately inserted into the fray to discredit more serious research (E.g. the phony Kenya birth certificate (BC) admittedly produced by an Obama supporter).
A natural born skeptic, I deploy an uncommonly open mind in the process of forming my own opinions, rather than accept uncritically the pronouncements of so-called experts. Once thus earned, I am quite prepared to defend them; but I still endeavor to remain open to the possibility of error, and changing an opinion when new data presents itself. Yet, I am not sure what it would take to get me to waste any further time revisiting the 9/11 Truth conspiracy; so I think I understand where you are coming from.
Still, I am at a loss to explain why your old news hound's latent curiosity is failing to notice that the NBC controversy is growing exponentially with the latest release of an Obama BC, when it should have subsided. I would like to believe that you have not bothered to read any of the many evidence-laden charges posted at WND, by purported experts and amateur 'Rather-gate' type sleuths alike, rather conclusively proving to even the critical reader that it was a rank forgery, and not a very good one.
That, in and of itself, is a news item of epic proportions, for which even Fox News is losing credibility among once loyal and devoted viewers, for deliberately ignoring. Are there no honest and/or fearless investigative journalists left anywhere in the media? It is viral out here in the Patriot/TEA Party community, and those who once found the NBC controversy crowd embarrassing, can't help asking themselves, "Why on Earth he would have taken such a risk, if a valid BC proving his nativity narrative actually existed?" Have you? Doesn't it suggest that there just might be something to the NBC controversy?
This puts me at pains to think of what I could possibly offer to entice you into investing about an hour, with your mind pried open at least a crack; so that you have a fair opportunity to learn that your prejudices may need a little rearranging. The only thing I can think of, is the potential that you might could slide past O'Reilly, in fame if not fortune (although it could spawn your next bestseller), and earn the undying gratitude of the very folks most likely to buy and read your books. I have a plan that could make you a hero. All you have to lose by exploring it is an hour of time; the upside potential is enormous. Game?
You see, the eligibility issue has never represented a conspiracy to me. I have been irrepressibly fascinated by the subject since the moment I first heard that Obama's father was a British subject, visiting America on a student visa. It happens that my younger sister is not a NBC, because she was born in a civilian hospital in Munich, Germany, while my father was stationed there during the occupation after WWII (1947).
Some 55 years ago, it was not thought necessary to have a Law degree and a library full of 'case law' books to be able to 'interpret' our Constitution. Written in rather plain English, it was generally thought at the time to mean exactly what it said; so, with a little help from a dictionary for the occasional archaic word, it was assumed to be easily taught (line by line as I recall) to any average junior high student. Thus, I can still remember clearly the day when my teacher revealed the startling detail that my sister and I had different classes of citizenship.
He specifically taught us that to be a NBC required BOTH one's parents to have been American citizens, AND one's birth must have taken place on sovereign American territory. Interestingly, I recall him explaining how an American embassy was considered our sovereign territory too. I even remember discussing my surprise at this information with my parents that night. They allowed as how it was unlikely that my sister would ever want to be President, and in every other respect her citizenship was the equal of mine. Thus, if I were to have forgotten every other detail of our Constitution, the proper definition of NBC would still be indelibly etched in my mind.
From day one, when Larry Johnson (whom I had liked and respected from his past frequent appearances on Fox News) was leading Hillary's PUMA opposition researchers in unraveling Obama's phony nativity narrative, and started the NBC controversy; I have been ranting and blogging that, while what they were uncovering was stunning, it was irrelevant. It mattered not a whit where he was born, or that he lost his American citizenship upon becoming an Indonesian citizen as a child. By definition alone, he was not a NBC, because he was born a British subject. Period. Full stop. Fini.
You cite Wikipedia as your sole source, for flippantly dismissing the subject after reading an incomplete quote therein from Madison. The Wiki is a notoriously unreliable source, especially for topics such as this, because partisans are forever rewriting its articles to spin their side of a debatable issue. It is great for a quick overview of a new subject, and I do frequently use it as a starting point for research. It rather nicely aggregates links to reference material and alternative research sites; but I have learned never to regard it as authoritative, and I would regard doing so as a bit sloppy for a reporter.
Are you ready for your shot at Journalist of the Year? If nothing else, you may gain a better insight into the demographics of the purchasers and readers of your books, which being cloistered in NYC may hamper. Here is your assignment. First, read my recent essay at:
It won't be a waste of time. One commenter recently remarked:
"That is the best synopsis and logical article I have read â€¦ gets to the heart of the matter and offers a practical recourse in the hands of the people themselves. I have turned the article into a PDF (& added a little artwork) that should be easy for everyone to send by email to as many people as they can. The PDF is available on my site at:
As a PDF it can also be easily printed and passed around that way too."
When I went to his website, I found it featured on the front page introduced thusly:
"Editor :: This article is a MUST-READ. Dave Hunter hits the nails right on the head with a factual, logical and easily understood article explaining the history, mechanics and remedy concerning the usurpation of the Whitehouse (sic) and the overthrow of the American republic. Make sure you pass this on to everyone you can."
When you get to the place where I suggest what Donald Trump or Sarah Palin et al could do to change the course of history, plug your own name in alongside theirs. Then, after finishing reading the downside in the "Aftermath" section, ponder long and hard as to whether, if you were to become convinced Obama was not a NBC, you have enough moxie to ask for the podium at the National Press Club, and cajole at least C-Span and Fox News into having their cameras rolling. If not, go back to sleep and peace be upon you. I am sorry to have disturbed you.
If so, you are on the hero's path. You will now need to do the independent research necessary to become absolutely convinced that my junior high history teacher was teaching us the truth. Before embarking on your journey, permit me to offer an observation or two regarding the only obstacles you will encounter - slime drenched prevaricating lawyers. Fortunately, Obama's fatal tactical error, of walking up to the microphone and personally vouching for the fraudulent birth certificate on April, 27th, will render them toothless in the end game; but we have to get you past their obfuscation in your own mind, before you can initiate it.
First, you will need to decide if you are an Originalist regarding the meaning of the plain language in our Constitution - that the words therein mean exactly what our Founders intended them to mean when they penned this contract. Or, do you buy the Progressive notion that it is somehow a 'living document,' which can be reinterpreted by arbitrary judicial fiat from time to time, to reflect evolving societal paradigms, without needing bother with the cumbersome Amendment process. If you agree with 'Original Intent,' you remain on the hero's path.
Please understand that respect for common sense, truth, and real justice were discarded from the legal profession long ago. They have been replaced by an unholy reverence for procedure, plausible deniability, and precedent. Ignoring any latent sense of justice, the esteem a modern lawyer earns from his peers, is strictly based on how effective he is at employing every trick in their tool bag, to prevent a client from losing in court, regardless of the facts of a case.
A dismissal over some arcane procedural issue is celebrated equally with an acquittal. Coercing a defendant to settle a nuisance lawsuit out of court, because it is cheaper and far less time consuming than fighting it, is the equivalent of winning on the merits to these characters. Tying up the courts and righteous plaintiffs for years, with dilatory procedural tactics to run out the clock and run up their fees, rather than allow the merits of the case to be addressed in court, is reckoned just good lawyering.
Thus, Obama has spent a couple of million dollars, much of it probably ours, in legal fees over the past three years; and allowed a Constitutionally conscious military officer, merely upholding his own oath, to actually go to prison, just to prevent having to do what he subsequently casually did on April 27th. Honestly ask yourself why, while listening carefully to your intuitive gut, and you will remain on the hero's path.
Then realize that this is no less than a SCOTUS issue. They have never found a need to rule on the actual definition of NBC; but they are still permitted to use common sense. Since the Constitution very definitely makes a distinction between a 'citizen' (required for legislative office), and a 'NBC' (required for CinC) doesn't that in an of itself suggest that they are not meant to refer to one and the same thing thing as Obama's defenders suggest? There is no way to legitimately mangle the 14th Amendment in a manner that would in any way modify the Founder's obvious intent in the NBC clause. Thus, the SCOTUS' primary resource for divining what they intended, would of necessity be a contemporary English dictionary.
Failing that, they would need to seek a written definition in other contemporary texts, especially legal texts. Enter Vattel's, "The Law of Nations," (1758) and first translated into English in 1760. It not only defines the term precisely; but while a newborn's citizenship customarily followed the father's back then, he actually used the plural 'parents' when defining NBC. You might appreciate the comments regarding our Founders familiarity and use of this legal scholar's book at:
Dig deep enough, and you should come to the realization that had Vattel not conveniently provided a precise term for the concept John Jay was requesting be placed into the qualifications of CinC, they would undoubtedly have articulated their intent more verbosely. Then, note Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 or our Constitution; to wit:
"[The Congress shall have Power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
Now, pray tell, since they 'neglected' to define this term also (suggesting that here too, there was not the slightest dispute regarding its meaning among them); what do you suppose they meant by 'Law of Nations?' Would we need to go through a lot of contorted legal research and lawyerly review of a couple of hundred years of subsequent 'case law,' to reach and informed opinion as to their intent here? Or might we be permitted to use a little common sense and Occam's razor, to conclude they were referring to the same subject matter as the book by that name, which they were using as a valued reference for their task at the time?
My point is, that once all the dilatory tactics have run their course, and some brave judge finally agrees to hear the merits of one of the dozens of cases that keep getting dismissed on various procedural grounds (chief among them that a mere American citizen lacks 'standing' to challenge the eligibility of one of our employees for high office), these clever legal eagles will immediately switch gears. Then will begin the obfuscating blizzard of legal briefs, trying to shoehorn obscure dicta within various obscure 'case law' lower court decisions, to suggest that some obscure partisan judge in the past, has effectively modified the plain meaning of the term NBC as used within their plastic Constitution.
One already encounter's such arguments from young Obama friendly attorneys, who have been programed in modern law school not to think for themselves; but to seek answers to all legal questions within their 'case law' libraries. Don't swallow their arguments without chewing first. I assure you that there are plenty of old guard Constitutional scholars and attorneys, who will vociferously disagree with them. Find them before reaching your own conclusions, and you shall remain on the hero's path.
Since you are obligated to check out my quotes and assertions anyway, I will leave you now to your own due diligence. Here are a few good places to start:
I would appreciate a reply, if you can find the time, to let me know if you are interested; or why not? Else, I'll need to expand my search for our savior. Remember, the first one to the podium wins the grand prize. I am also curious if you folks writing books for this genre ever bother to read each other's work. Have you read any of the three I mentioned in my essay? Which; and what did you think of them?
I would think Cashill's exposÃ© in particular, would rub honest scribes the wrong way, no matter their politics. Obama must serve some powerfully potent Kool-Aid! I find it puzzling how little coverage any of them got in the media, yet all were seriously researched efforts, by well-credentialed and accomplished writers.