Beck03-16-2010.wmv

Glenn Beck on Peter Boyles' KHOW radio show 03-16-2010 Beck questioned about "Birther" concerns.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Glenn Beck
• Beck
• Peter Boyles
• Boyles
• Birther

[amctrl]

@tjmcc3

Why did the supreme court deny Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz? Why in Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana did the appellate decision state "[b]ased 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."? I know! It's a conspiracy! Pardon me why I get my tinfoil hat!

[tjmcc3]

@amctrl

SC didn't state why they did not hear wrot v Bys. Likely standing.

SC has repeatedly recognize NBC as birth on soil to two us citizens.

1814 The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattels definition of natural born citizens);

1830 Shanks v Dupont,

1875 Minor v Happ,

1879 Ex parte Reynolds,

1890 US v Ward,

[tjmcc3]

@amctrl

Wong Kim Ark did NOT EVER state that persons born winthin US are NBC! 1898 US v WKA, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a citizen of US and not an Article II natural born Citizen and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattels definition of a natural born Citizen ); No "tin foil" or conspiracy here, only your own ignorance.

[post105]

Actually if what Glenn is saying is true... That Obama WANTS birthers to bring this up, Then why isn't the Left, and liberal media pressing the issue instead of painting birthers as nut jobs??

[tjmcc3]

iF O WANTED birthers to bring up his BC, then Obama's own web page at FightTheSmears would no't be trying to present NBC to be the same as "citizen" and "native born", which it is not, and this from a supposed "constitutional scholar".

[tjmcc3]

The Article II requirement for President isnt based on "support" or "agreement". The requirement that none but a natural born citizen is eligible takes precedent. It has known meaning as recognized by 6 U.S supreme courts over more than 100+ years of this country's history. Obama is known to not be a natural born citizen due to his father not being an American citizen; the birth certificate itself is entirely irrelevant. Impeachment is only for those qualified and elected. We're ruled by Law

[amctrl]

Tell it to the Indiana Court of Appeals, LOL!

What are you birther nuts in the courts now? Something like 0 for 10?

[post105]

I think Glenn thinks this issue, if it were to not come out right, could hurt his career.

Then we have lost the biggest news guy that tells us what obama is doing on a day to day level.

As far as if Obama is eligible, What is the truth and what is the Law?

Rather hard thing to do AFTER he is elected leader of the free world.

[surfer53]

The point Glenn is making is that this is a red herring. If Obama was sticking to the constitution and had the support of the majority of Americans, the Right wouldn't care - and so neither does Glenn. You can agree or disagree, but do you want a president impeached on something like this or on the basis of where the country is headed? You can get more people to agree on direction, clearly, than you can on the birther issue.