Bret Baier Natural Born Citizen update, May 2, 2012, Baier show coming with possible panel of constitutional scholars, No mention of Obama deficiency

Bret Baier Natural Born Citizen update, May 2, 2012, Baier show coming with possible panel of constitutional scholars, No mention of Obama deficiency

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury vs Madison

From Bret Baier of Fox News May 1, 2012.

“I posted this quickly as a response to all of the emails I was receiving about Senator Marco Rubio and whether he is a “Natural Born Citizen (the same emails comment about Gov. Bobby Jindal). I noted in the blog- there is a lot of dispute about the legal term and what the Founding Fathers truly meant. What I did not put in the blog -was that a large part of this was originally reported by Byron York of the Washington Examiner. I asked him to send me his reporting a few weeks ago – and I should have cited that in the blog this morning… I apologize to Byron for leaving that out. Bottom line… this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it.. and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars… and legal experts to discuss this. There is obviously a lot of confusion.. uncertainty and misinformation out there about this topic. And as I wrote in the blog.. there is vigorous legal debate about the term… so we need to talk about it… and we’ll continue to report all sides.”

The inaccurate  report by Bret Baier on Natural Born Citizen from yesterday at Citizen Wells.

““Bret explains “natural born citizen” requirements for president and vice president”

“Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take– and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:

The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father’s nationality.

The brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate — has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a “natural born citizen,” but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there. There are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. There are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is a U.S. national (that is, from an outlying possession of the U.S.), provided the citizen parent has lived in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to the birth of the child. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, two of them after the age of 14.

They’re all natural born U.S. citizens. That also includes people who are born in Puerto Rico and people who were born in states before they became states. Born in Hawaii in 1950, a decade before statehood? You’re a natural born U.S. citizen.

That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement.. and how you get that status is actually pretty open. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue (and there are no plans that we know of that that will happen)… — to your emails… Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.”

Bret Baier is correct about one thing, the US Supreme Court needs to clarify the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

The article starts out with some accuracy “Many legal analysts and scholars.”

This is true, there is much disagreement and debate.

However, the article ends “That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement”, implying a consensus.

Without getting into all the subtle intricacies of law and legal precedent, I will make this simple.

First, the framers of the constitution provided some clarity with this provision:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

A distinction is made between citizen and natural born citizen. Also, this allowed the founder fathers to be eligible and also children born from the time of independence to the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.””

44 responses to “Bret Baier Natural Born Citizen update, May 2, 2012, Baier show coming with possible panel of constitutional scholars, No mention of Obama deficiency

  1. News Corp (Fox news parent company) has been under constant threat for at least a year now by the DOJ and/or FBI for wiretaps, foreign bribes and who knows what else. It’s no wonder that now even Fox news swings from Obama’s testicles. If Baier assembles a panel, there’s only a 1% chance someone like Mario or Leo would be invited to attend.

  2. Had to bring this forward and suggest everyone write Bret. It is good that he has openned the door.

    zachjonesishome | May 2, 2012 at 8:12 am | | Edit

    Bret tweeted a few minutes ago.

    Bret Baier ‏ @BretBaier

    Good morning. Thoughts on the day?
    Regarding conflict of Constitution with federal code see Marbury v Madison.

    …It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

    Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument….

  3. Free Speech

    KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) – The Taliban struck back less than two hours after President Barack Obama left Afghanistan on Wednesday, targeting a foreigners’ housing compound with a suicide car bomb and militants disguised as women in an assault that killed at least seven people.

    It was the second major assault in Kabul in less than three weeks and highlighted the Taliban’s continued ability to strike in the heavily guarded capital even when security had been tightened for Obama’s visit and Wednesday’s anniversary of the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in neighboring Pakistan.

  4. Free Speech

    ( – Although President Obama has only served 39 months in office, 69 percent of the U.S. military fatalities in the more than 10-year-old war in Afghanistan have occurred on his watch.

  5. “Occupy” Movement Was Infiltrated By FBI


    “Occupy” Movement Was Infiltrated By FBI Informant In Cleveland Bridge Bombing Probe

    The federal probe that resulted last night in the arrest of five purported anarchists for allegedly plotting to bomb an Ohio bridge began last year at an Occupy Wall Street rally in Cleveland that was infiltrated by an informant who was directed to attend the event by his FBI handlers.

    By Dan Crosby

    “Baier’s maligned attempts to erroneously equate a “U.S. Citizen at birth” with a “Natural Born citizen” as the requirement to be president are flagrant and stunning given his network’s silence on the issue over the past 5 years. However, it appears the possibility of Florida Republican senator, Marco Rubio being considered as likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential pick has suddenly invigorated Fox’s interest in the eligibility issue.

    Marco Rubio, like Obama, is not eligible to serve as the Vice President or President, despite Baier’s efforts to prop up Rubio’s and Obama’s failed eligibility status.”

  7. Free Speech

    White House officials are using optimistic and assertive language to frame their unconditional withdrawal from the Afghanistan war as a positive achievement, amid a continued offensive by the Taliban and their ideological soulmates in al-Qaida.

    The administration’s positive portrayal of that result helps Obama downplay any suggestion that his policy will cause a Vietnam-like military defeat, and will likely boost his poll numbers among Americans as the November election nears.

    Yet only hours after Obama left Kabul, a Taliban-led suicide car bomb attack in the eastern part of the city killed at least six people including five civilians. Kabul’s police chief told Reuters that the bomb targeted a housing complex popular with Westerners.

  8. Obama The Great Divider

    Obama The Great Liar

    Obama stole 500 billion from Medicare to fund his Obamacare

  9. Free Speech

    Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to snap pictures.

    “You guys make a pretty good photo op,” the president said.

  10. OT, but….They’ll use the IRS to terrorize citizens but how fortunate for the illegals:

    IRS Tax Loophole – more UNBELIEVABLE Fraud on America Citizens

    You must first watch this short Eyewitness News 13 video:

  11. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)

    Need a reason why our founding fathers wanted any president or vice president to be Natural Born Citizens (Both parents citizens), then here is one.

    “Obama and the Mau Mau”

    The primary reason for NBC was for there to be no possibility of mixed allegiance.

    PS – If you read the article you will see that it mentions the British ship “HM Resolute”. The lumber from it is currently the desk in the White House and here is a picture of it with you know who sitting with his feet up on the top.



  12. Free Speech

    As CBS 2’s Susanna Song reports, the government is warning small plane pilots that if they enter the no-fly zone during the summit, they may be shot down.

    This is no joke. It will be enforced for May 19 to May 21.

  13. Free Speech

    After the Ohio attacks, the men would focus on waging similar assaults in Chicago during the upcoming NATO summit, according to FBI Special Agent Ryan Taylor. According to Agent Ryan’s affidavit, the five anarchists wanted body armor, helmets and gas masks to wear in Chicago, which was “the main place they were worried about having the protective gear because there is no telling what they might have to use there.”

    Suspect Douglas Wright is quoted by the FBI as saying that “it will be crazy in Cleveland, but crazier in Chicago with people coming from everywhere to Chicago to protest the NATO summit.”

  14. Free Speech

    If Transportation Security pat downs at public venues, thousands of drones over the skies of America, and the National Security Agency’s new Echelon-like listening center in Utah weren’t enough to convince you that we’re living in a police state, then perhaps the latest news out of Chicago will change your mind.

    As world leaders prepare to meet in the windy city for their annual NATO summit, U.S. federal officials are working feverishly to implement a security net so broad that it encompasses the entirety of Cook County, Illinois. While international summits are traditionally met with a larger police presence and preparations for the possibility of protests or rioting, what’s taking place on American soil in anticipation of the May 20 meeting in downtown Chicago can be interpreted in only one way – the implementation of regionalized martial law.

  15. Interesting how few ‘google news search’ iresults about Bret’s remarks.

  16. The main stream media continues to circle the wagons.

  17. Free Speech

    The Illinois Department of Transportation is testing an emergency plan to shut off access into and out of downtown Chicago. The plan uses a network of highway security gates that are designed to shut down all traffic coming in and out of Chicago in the event of a terrorist attack.

    The Illinois DOT is warning truckers that it’s best to avoid the city during the NATO Summit in Chicago May 20-21. There will be a number of driving restrictions and rolling street closures, and the Illinois DOT is testing highway barricades that will block access to all major highways in and out of Chicago.

    These barricades, which started being installed on Chicago highways back in 2005, are deigned to restrict or cut off access to roads during an emergency like a bioterrorism attack.

  18. Free Speech

    Detention Centers

    It’s been reported by the local media, that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is devising a strategy to deal with large-scale mass arrests during the NATO Summit meeting. In fact, the Chicago Sun Times is reporting that the once abandoned Joliet State Prison may be reopened as a mass detention center for NATO.

  19. bob strauss

    Minor v. Happersett Revisited.
    Posted in Uncategorized on January 9, 2012 by naturalborncitizen

    [My previous report was in three parts, with the first being a rather extensive exposure of a misquote by the SCOTUS in both McCreery v. Somerville and Wong Kim Ark. The second part exposed fraudulent propaganda from Maskell’s most recent CRS memo. And the final part examined Minor v. Happersett in light of some of the arguments being offered against its precedent, providing new analysis of key provisions of the holding therein. I am reprinting the section on Minor now as a separate post because it is crucial to understanding the case, and it appears to have been somewhat swallowed up by the first two parts.]


    …the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

    There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.

    On one side are those who have no citizenship other than that of the United States… as distinguished from those on the polar opposite side who have absolutely no claim to citizenship in the United States; “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Those who fall in between these two extremes make up a third class of persons whose citizenship status, the Court noted, was subject to doubt:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

    Had this third class been contemplated as having any claim to being natural-born citizens, the distinction employed by the court would not make sense. The distinction was employed to more specifically identify the class of persons who were natural-born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The two classes discussed are in direct polar opposition to each other. Had this distinction not been employed, it might be argued that those born in the country of one citizen parent were also natural-born. But the distinction leads to the necessary conclusion that the Court in Minor was identifying a two-citizen parent rule.

    For example, a person born in the US to a British father and U.S. citizen mother would, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (and at the time Minor v. Happersett was decided), be considered as a natural-born subject of the U.K. Whether this child would be, at his birth, a citizen under the 14th amendment, was left undecided by the Court in Minor. But let’s assume that the child was a U.S. citizen. Where does that child fit into the distinction offered by the Court in Minor? The child is not on either polar extreme, since the child was not exclusively a US citizen at birth, nor was the child exclusively a British subject at birth. He does not fit into the distinction.

    By choosing two extremes – those who, at their birth, are nothing but U.S. citizens – “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” – those who, at their birth, are in no way U.S. citizens – the Supreme Court in Minor provided the necessary criteria to properly discern their holding.

    Nothing has been left open as to the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen. This is further made clear by the Court’s other – somewhat overlooked – federal citizenship holding:

    “The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…

    For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874). (Emphasis added.)

    Therefore, when the Court uses the words, “citizen” or “citizenship”, no other meaning may be imputed other than, “membership of a nation”. But Jack Maskell believes he can overrule this specific holding of the Supreme Court by inserting the words “natural-born” where they do not appear. ”Natural-born” only pertains to a requirement for the municipal office of President. Those who are natural-born meet that qualification, but all who are citizens, natural-born, naturalized abroad, naturalized here, at birth or later in life, are members of our nation. The word citizen – according to the Supreme Court in Minor – refers to “membership of a nation, and nothing more“. It’s the “nothing more” that Maskell fails to recognize.

    In Maskell’s CRS memo, he alleges that the following statement from Minor left open the issue of whether persons born of aliens could be considered as natural-born citizens:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-168. (Emphasis added.)

    Reading this passage in light of the definition of “citizen” from pg. 166 of Minor’s unanimous opinion, it becomes evident that what is referred to here is membership in our nation, and nothing more. Any attempt to insert the words – “natural-born” – into this passage to imply that the court left open the issue of whether those whose citizenship was in doubt might also be eligible to be President would be in direct opposition to the Court’s very holding of the case. This expression of doubt must be limited to the political status of the person, not to their eligibility to hold a municipal office. Political status is a legal term of art which means, “membership in a nation, and nothing more”. Presidential eligibility refers to municipal status. The holding not only determined Virginia Minor’s citizenship, it directly defined “citizen”, and that definition remains the law of the land today.

    First, on pgs. 165-166, the Court defined the meaning of the word “citizen”. Then, on pgs. 167-168, the court defined the class of “natural-born citizens”. The Court left open the issue of who were “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, which the Court wisely avoided by exercising judicial constraint. Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5, the natural-born citizen clause. In doing so, they defined and closed that class to persons born in the country to parents who are citizens.

    The Minor Court’s unanimous opinion and definition of natural-born citizen have never been overruled or even questioned. In fact, the very passage defining the natural-born citizen class was re-stated in Justice Gray’s opinion from Wong Kim Ark. Had he intended to take issue with that definition, or to expand it, then his opinion would certainly contain something like this:

    Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President.

    But no such statement exists. It’s also important to remember at all times that the Court in Minor specifically avoided construction of the 14th Amendment, thereby defining the class of natural-born citizens and identifying Virginia Minor as a member of that class. Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to determine that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. But the Minor Court declined to construe the 14th Amendment, and thereafter set about defining the class of persons who were natural-born citizens of the United States in determining that she was a citizen.

    In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum:

    “Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

    The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

    Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.

    Had the Court in Wong Kim Ark identified him as a natural-born citizen, there would have been no need to construe the 14th Amendment, just as it wasn’t necessary to construe it to determine Virginia Minor’s citizenship. But Wong Kim Ark was not natural-born, and therefore the Court was required to construe the 14th Amendment to determine his citizenship status.

    Again, had Justice Gray’s opinion intended to state that Ark was natural-born, there would be a sentence in Gray’s opinion stating, Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen. But there isn’t. No amount of tongue twisting can insert those words where they do not exist and do not belong.

    The same is true for the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett. Had the court intended to say – Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents – then that is exactly what the US Supreme Court would have said. But they didn’t.

    And the same can be said for the framers of the 14th Amendment. Had they intended to include the words “natural-born citizen” in the Amendment, then that is exactly what they would have done. But they didn’t. Any attempt to read those words into the 14th Amendment would render Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to be superfluous. And that goes directly against our entire body of national jurisprudence on the issue of statutory construction.

    I will more thoroughly address the issue of statutory construction in the days ahead. (Since the state of Georgia will be hearing this issue on Jan. 26, 2012, I have decided to come forward with everything I have now, rather than waiting to publish my book.)

    Leo Donofrio, Esq.

  20. bob strauss

    Good morning. My last comment is in moderation.

    Natural Born Citizen site by Leo Donofrio is still available on line, if anyone wants to read his research on the subject of natural born Citizen.

    There are volumes of material available on his site, and he has unmasked the “Constitutional scholars” that have claimed Obama to be eligible as a NBC, including Jack Maskell and his memo to congress saying Obama is eligible.

  21. bob strauss

    My last two comments are in moderation.

  22. bob strauss


    Bill Hemmer on FOX is about to do a story about the IRS loophole you refered to in your comment.

  23. TC | May 2, 2012 at 8:09 am |

    Hi TC,

    Got this via e-mail last night from the Article II SuperPac. It looks as if Atty. Herb Titus will accept Baier’s invite and be there with bells on :).

  24. bob strauss

    This is a test to see if I type, Leo Donofrio, will get this comment put in moderation.

  25. Free Speech

    As usual with this president, Obama’s trip to and speech from Afghanistan had way more to do with politics than any real substance.

    Seven thousand miles, one way, is a long journey to share war remarks with countrymen that he should have and could have shared back home many months ago. Despite the administration’s best backgrounding sales efforts, the document he signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a meaningless basic agreement to talk later about forging a real agreement.

  26. bob strauss

    I guess WordPress or CW doesn’t want Leo’s material spread around without restrictions. I am not using his last name as a test to get past moderation.

  27. bob strauss

    CW, I must have pissed off the “GODS”, every comment I make goes into moderation.

    What ever happened to freedom of speech?

  28. Great Article worth reading

    Paradigm Lost: Why the rEVOLution Has Not Been Televised

    Submitted by Robin Koerner on Tue, 05/01/2012 – 21:05

    To those who care about such things, the silence of the media about the extraordinary events around Ron Paul’s campaign is deafening.

    Some see conspiracy. I don’t. I see the expected reaction to a paradigm shift — a complete change in the concepts we use to make sense of our politics and culture.

    An excellent illustration of the power of a “paradigm” is the Perceptions of Incongruity experiment that was conducted at Harvard in 1949.

    In this experiment, subjects were shown playing cards and asked to call out what they saw. They would consistently identify the cards correctly. After a while, however, the experimenters would slip in “incongruous cards” in which the colors red and black were switched, such as black hearts or diamonds and red clubs or spades.

    What did the subjects see when shown those incongruous cards? They did not see the incongruous cards, but normal playing cards — the cards they were expecting to see, without noticing the incongruity. For example, when shown a black six of hearts, they might call out simply “six of hearts” or “six of spades” — neither of which was correct. The subjects didn’t misunderstand or misinterpret anything — they actually misperceived something according to the paradigm in which they were operating — in this case, “the playing card paradigm,” comprising everything they already knew (wrongly) about the cards they were looking at.

    continue reading

  29. Mr. Wells.

    Do you not want Christian videos such as the 700 Club, Christian bible teacher/bible scholar/evangelist Perry Stone’s videos, and ppsimmons videos here? I send to you Christian videos from these sources & I see you delete them.

    Mr. Wells, God’s Forever Living Words in the Holy Bible are Infinitely Powerful & I think they should be shared everywhere so the message of God’s salvation can be broadcast everywhere that is possible on the earth. I hope you will allow them to be posted here.

    I post the videos I send here to your web site to many web sites too, to share the gospel of God with others.

    Thank you.

  30. I have a relative in Afghanistan. He has been there since last summer. He was shipped to Bagram just a couple days ago, probably to be filler for Obama’s photo ops.

  31. Free Speech

    Petraeus served as commanding general of both wars the U.S. fought over the last decade, headed up central command, and is now director of the CIA. And, of course, he had the courage and professionalism to serve in a deeply unpopular war and, remarkably, come out with his reputation enhanced. Probably no person alive has a better grasp of the international situation, America’s role in the world, and the limitations and capabilities of American power.
    Petraeus is one of the most well-respected figures in the country. A year ago only 11 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of him, according to Gallup, half that of Christie. And as a non-partisan figure he has not been tarnished by the mud-slinging of recent years. Additionally, Petraeus would bring foreign policy expertise to the ticket, balancing Romney’s focus on economic issues. If Obama really intends to claim that his foreign policy accomplishments should earn voters’ respect, there is no one in the country with more credibility than Petraeus to take Obama’s argument apart.

  32. Free Speech

    Will Gen. David Petraeus be Mitt Romney’s choice for vice president? Paula Broadwell’s dense biography, All In, is well timed. Politically, because of inevitable speculation about the Republican ticket in November. Militarily, because President Obama’s new budget-slashing defense strategy appears to abandon much that Petraeus worked for through the past decade of war.

  33. citizenwells


    “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”

  34. Free Speech
  35. Free Speech

    Alberto R. Gonzales (born August 4, 1955) was the 80th, and the first Hispanic United States Attorney General, appointed in February of 2005 by President George W. Bush, becoming the highest highest-ranking Hispanic in government to date.

    Alberto Gonzales was born to a Catholic family[3] in San Antonio, Texas, and raised in Humble, a town outside of Houston. Of Mexican descent, he was the second of eight children born to Pablo and Maria Gonzales. His father, who died in 1982, was a migrant worker and then a construction worker with a second grade education. His mother worked at home raising eight children and had a sixth grade education. Gonzales and his family of ten lived in a small, two-bedroom home built by his father and uncles with no telephone and no hot running water.

  36. SueK | May 2, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    TC | May 2, 2012 at 8:09 am |

    Hi TC,

    Got this via e-mail last night from the Article II SuperPac. It looks as if Atty. Herb Titus will accept Baier’s invite and be there with bells on
    Sue, this is excellent news! Titus is one of the best.

  37. Re: citizenwells | May 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm |

    God’s Forever Living Words are always in season in this evil and sick and dying world…. CW, how much are God’s Forever Living Words needed now to turn this nation around?

    Find an Event in your area:



    March 29, 2012

    “FNC senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Supreme Court’s hearings on the health-care law and why the Justices will likely throw out the entire health-care law.”





    March 8, 2012

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccellini:

    “This pResident and his administration in my view represent the greatest set of law-breakers that have run the federal government in our lifetimes.

    The fact is, pResident Obama and his appointee’s have ignored federal laws, they’ve ignored binding rulings of federal courts, and they’ve ignored the limits on their power mandated by the constitution.”

    Lou Dobbs: […] “What is going on? […] What is the recourse that you hope to achieve here?”

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccellini:

    “Well, there’s two things going on here. We compiled all of these violations of the law that we’re all contending with around the country, to make the point that American’s need to understand fully what’s at stake in November, if they choose to vote to re-elect this pResident.


    THESE AREN’T JUST DISPUTES ABOUT, “Well you see it one way, and we see it another way.” For instance, take the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission went into try to regulate the Internet.

    A COURT TOLD THEM IN AN ORDER, “You don’t have the authority to do that.” They went back in the same year and said, “Well, we’re going to do it any way!!!!” IN THE FACE OF A COURT ORDER THAT THEY DIDN’T APPEAL!!!!!

    These are “the pResident’s” appointee’s!!!!!!
    In that instance, it isn’t just their opinion versus some other lawyer, in my case an attorney general, IT’S — A COURT HAS RULED, AND THEY HAVE IGNORED THE RULING!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And so now some private parties are going back to court with them over that. WE’RE GOING TO HELP those private parties from our perspective TO RE-ESTABLISH THE RULES OF LAW THERE.

    We can rattle off examples from the EPA which I’ve taken to calling the “Employment Prevention Agency” because they’re so good at that, BUT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW.

    THESE ARE NOT POLICY DIFFERENCES, THESE ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW. And the pResident has created a corporate culture in his administration, that is very comfortable not merely pushing the boundaries, but completely trampling them, be they constitutional or legal.”

    Lou Dobb: […] “[T]he assault on religious freedom initiated by this administration […]. This is REMARKABLE for any administration!!!!”

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccellini:

    “IT IS TRULY UNPRECEDENTED. People are used to hearing hyperbole in election years. The numbers don’t lie. I mean just in the report we compiled there were over 20 violations of the law, [of “Obama” and his administration] and just Last week, Virginia and Texas were in the DC circuit court of appeals here, on behalf of 15 states […].


    Lou Dobbs: “As always, It is good talking with you. We appreciate it.”


    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  41. Special Report was one of the few shows left on Fox that I even half way watched, because I had a little respect left for Brett. He threw what was left out the window when he either is too dumb to understand the difference in Citizen at Birth and NBC, or either he thinks his audience is too dumb to see through his word play.

    I emailed him immediately and have stopped watching the show, for whatever good that will do. I miss the old Fox that was really fair and balanced and had real Conservative / Liberal viewpoints presented. Now, they just try to middle-of-the road everything and I think their ratings are taking a hit for it, but it doesn’t seem to self-correct them.

    I’m encouraged that he wants to have a debate, but it won’t be fair and it definitely won’t be balanced.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s