From Conception...To Election


Wednesday, May 2, 2012



By Dan Crosby
of the DAILY PEN

NEW YORK, NY – Fox News’ Bret Baier is the latest pundit to miss the presidential eligibility mark when writing in his Fox website blog, The Daily Bret, he attempted to incorrectly equate a “citizen by birth” with a “natural born citizen”.   
Baier writes, “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.
They're all natural born U.S. citizens…”
Unfortunately, Baier is wrong and misguided.  Those he defines here are not Natural born citizens.  A natural born U.S. citizen is one born in the United States, specifically defined as a geographic location held under the constitutional protection of the U.S., to two U.S. citizen parents, conditions which are well defined by the tenets of natural law and national identity. 
“Again, this is another example of a politically-minded individual desperately seeking an extralegal mooring upon which to anchor their opinion about Obama’s eligibility.  Unfortunately for Baier, that mooring is not found there,” says TDP Editor, Pen Johannson.
The commonly understood meaning of the terms in effect within the societies adjacent to the writing of the U.S. Constitution, which were understood by the framers of the Constitution to be facts of natural law, assigned natural born U.S. citizenship status based on laws of nature, not laws of man.  Therefore, Baier’s attribution that Natural Born citizenship can be conferred by such a law is simply wrong.  Natural born citizenship cannot be endowed by a law of man, it can only be agreed with or rejected with consequences.
It appears Baier is rejecting the constitution, not agreeing with it.       
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. 
Rubio, like Obama, was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which is one of the conditions of being afforded Natural citizenship status and, therefore, presidential eligibility.  Neither Obama nor Rubio are eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.   
Unfortunately, when Baier says, “…Many legal analysts and scholars agree…” he fails to indentify these mysterious individuals.
However, the opposite is true.  Legal analysts with a liberal bent do not agree with constitutional law experts that a natural born U.S. citizen is an individual born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents, as defined in fact by the unassailable tenets of natural law commonly understood by the founders because it would mean that Obama is, indeed, not eligible.  Now that Rubio must be measured under the same metrics, the Obotic horde is suddenly interested in the traditional definition. 
 “Unfortunately, aside from the mysterious identity of these so-called legal analysts and scholars, Baier in is error, as are many who serve the rank value of empty political debate in today’s media,” says Johannson.   
“Whereas Fox News has assumed what many might characterize as a diametric opposition to those who support the political substance and ideology of Barack Obama, it has become obvious that the network has become nothing more than a foul side of the same ineligibility abetment coin,” he continued.
“Regardless of either side of that coin you might prefer, Republican or Democrat, the coin is still counterfeit.  Flip it all you want, Baier is only validating what we already suspect about Fox. Failure to question Obama’s fraudulent presidency is the same as abetting his crimes of forgery of evidence to support the lie.”  
Fox News is owned by shareholders which include Saudi Prince, Alwaleed bin Talal, as well the Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp group, all of whom are heavily invested in viewership drawn on political debate and investments in political power related to Obama’s policies. 
The value of Fox News has long since been defined upon a default premise that Obama’s presidency and, therefore, his policies are assumed legitimate despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Fox correspondents, including Baier, are persistently reminded not to undermine the political value of Obama’s presidency, even though the evidence offered to support the legitimacy of that presidency has been shown by law enforcement investigations to be forged and contextually deficient.
Baier writes, “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.
 “Baier has been brainwashed by Fox’s need to serve its viewers’ pervasive lust for political conflict and, therefore, he upholds a dissonant tenet which commands that in order for their media content to hold the attention that ignorant audience and, therefore, the profitability of the Fox business model, Fox News must uphold the appearance of “not questioning” Obama’s eligibility while simultaneously supporting its viewers’ reality.” says Johannson.
“It’s about maintaining a balanced conflict with its competitors for Fox.  That cannot be done if Obama is allowed to be legally convicted as a fraud in the eyes of Fox viewers.  Fox simply does not have the infrastructure and mechanisms to deal with such an apocalyptic revelation after everything it has invested in its own representation and endorsement of a legitimate political process under Obama.”    
Johannson explains that admitting Obama is a fraud removes Fox’s daily line up of scholarly political opinions and lauded guests who serve as counter-fodder to MSNBC and CNN.  An Obama eligibility void threatens the solvency of their viewership because the economic and political destruction wrought by the truth of Obama’s illegitimacy in the domain of media consciousness is simply not survivable to a scripted mill-run like Fox.    
“If they allow Obama to be proven to be the ineligible fraud that he actually is, it means that no political opinion is worthy because legal justice destroys the ability to opine.  What kind of programs will Fox broadcast on election night if Obama is declared ineligible?  Think about it.  The numbers would mean nothing.  The Electoral College is rendered meaningless.  If Obama is ineligible to Fox News, Baier has nothing to talk about because Obama’s politics and policies are no longer relevant versus his opponents at that point.  They are void.  He is void…and so is the mainstream media dynamic built on conflict and division.” 
As evidence that Fox News has actively promoted a media blackout of the eligibility issue with regard to Obama, Fox News has never aired any full length report or segment fully addressing the scope of Obama’s presidential ineligibility.  Moreover, the so-called, “Fair and Balanced” network has failed in its duty to even question the evidence of forgery and fraud discovered by a constitutionally empowered law enforcement investigation undertaken by Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio.    
However, it now appears Fox is taking notice.  Baier wrote:  
“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...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.
Unfortunately for Mr. Baier, the actual “bottom line” is this:  Marco Rubio is not eligible to hold the office of Vice President or President.  There is nothing to debate.  If he participates in an election as candidate for either office, he is in violation of the law. 
Baier continues:   
“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.”
Wrong again. Baier fails to uphold the maximum requirements demanded by the Constitution. Unless those born in Hawaii are born under the jurisdiction of the laws of the U.S. to two U.S. parents, they are not natural born citizens no matter when they are born.
Baier then erroneously declares, “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.”
 “Again, like so many misled people on this subject, Baier is desperately holding to a minimalist’s standard when assigning Obama’s citizenship qualifications to be president.  Natural born citizenship is the fundamentally exceptional requirement to be president.  Failure to acknowledge this is aversive to the founders’ intentions and collusive with eligibility fraudulence in our government,” Johannson responded.   
“In doing so, Baier reveals that he fails to understand that American citizens of the 1700s did not provide a remedial definition of the term ‘natural born citizen’ for us here in 2012 because they could not even consider it possible that the society they created under the divine providence of natural law, could have declined to such a debased state of intellectual and moral ineptitude, as we have, that we might actually be confused about what a natural born citizen is,” says Johannson,
“For the founders, providing such a definition would have been like defining the rules of long division for Albert Einstein.  They would have seen it as a waste of ink and paper space to define a Natural born citizen because everyone already knows what a natural born citizen is!”     
Johannson says that there exists a clear definition of what it is to be a Natural born citizen. 
“Baier, like his media colleagues just refuse to look at the source because that source convicts their shallow standards, which are rejected wholly by our founders.  Baier has proven that willful dissonance on this subject is more easily accepted than the psychological pain of admitting he is simply wrong and that he has been deceived by Obama.”
The law cited by Baier does not address natural born citizenship nor does it address the citizenship requirement as it applies to Article II.
 “The law cited by Baier is explicitly intended and created for the assignment of citizenship status of individuals not born under the natural laws of national identity.  In this case, slaves had previously been forbidden to become citizens because of their African roots.  This law remedied this new class of citizenry with a provision of citizenship after the Emancipation Proclamation.  The idea that this law, which was added the Constitution more than 100 years after its ratification, presents a definition of the citizenship requirements to become President of the U.S. is absolutely ridiculous.”      


  1. Did you notice that Bret's blog doesn't let you comment?

    1. That's why I have now sent two e-mails (the last e-mail being a link to this article) to him directly:

  2. This is the best analysis I have read yet on why Fox is so invested in perpetuating the Obama fraud. I also think Fox picked Baier to wade NOW into this area because he seems like the quintessential nice guy...mild mannered and not an in your face now feed us the dangerously false reasoning of their nonsensical meaning of natural born citizenship. The people at Fox are seriously ignorant and it appears ever more desperate to continue the lies. Tune em out.

    1. Kath , Fox New knows we have a constitutional crises and are trying to avoid it by changing the meaning of Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution . They are hoping the fraud obama will lose the 2012 election . As I have said before We The People cannot have a legal election in 2012 when the current administration is an illegal one . US Constitutional law must be enforced before a legal presidential election can take place in 2012.

  3. Kath:

    Let's not "tune 'em out" no matter how tempting that might be. Baier's foot-in-mouth disease is a wonderful opening to lever an honest panel discussion on "nbC" and what it means. It will become evident even to Chris Matthews during that discussion (if they really to have the knowledgeable experts as part of it) that Obama ain't one - BC or not!!

    Fox & Baier have been bombarded with calls, emails, & letters to have such an HONEST panel. I've done so and suggested Herb Titus, Esqs., Mafio Apuzzo, Esq., Jerome Corsi, and CDR Charles Kerchner as the 4 guys who are cognizant of the truth. SCOTUS has already defined the term in an 1875 ruling that has not onky never been overtrnedm but has been affirmed since then.

    Everyone hammer on Fox to do this rght away!!

  4. 10 easy questions, no tricks (except for #10), for Bret Baier...

    ... and BIG Talker "thought leaders" on radio and tv and BIG Writer "thought leaders" in print and online -

    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent...

    ... even if the papa is known to be foreign born?
    ... even if the papa is unknown as the result of rape?

    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

    Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1787 Clause 5 "Citizen?"


    Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen?"


    Does and 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1787 Clause 5 "Citizen?"


    Does a child born on U.S. soil to TWO non-U.S. "Citizen" parents qualify to be POTUS?


    Does a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent qualify to be POTUS?


    2 more questions for extra credit -

    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen?"


    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1795 Naturalization Act "Citizen?"

    - - - - - - - - - -

    Of course, there are many more focused questions to ask ORIGINAL "birther" document "anti-birther" misunderstanders of

    the ORIGINAL intent of
    the ORIGINAL words of
    the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic,



  5. Actually, anyone born in the Hawaiian islands, to Hawaiian citizens, between the enactment of the Hawaiian Organic Act in 1900(retroactive to 1898), and statehood in 1959 would be considered natural born Citizens. The Organic Act made all residents of Hawaii US Citizens. This would be the same as those born in the colonies after the Declaration of Independence, and before the ratification of the US Constitution--- like Martin Van Buren, born in NY in 1782 to colonial NY residents-- the first natural born Citizen president. His parents, if still resident in the colonies in 1789, at the time of ratification, would have also been eligible by the grandfather clause, "or a citizen at the time of the ratification". Therefore anyone moving to Hawaii, and becoming a citizen and resident of Hawaii, who was present there when Hawaii became a state, when the Constitution was aadopted, would have been eligible.
    Nebraska v. Boyd reinforces this.

  6. 10 easy questions cont....

    What does Clause 5 mean?

    Clause 5 means that when George Washington was elected President 2 months after the U.S. government started in 1789, he was simply a “Citizen,” not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, as indicated in Clause 5, when the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787 and then ratified in 1788.

    Clause 5 means that Presidents #1 - #9 and #12 were ALL “Citizens” and NOT “natural born Citizens” of the NEW Constitutional Republic, called the United States in Clause 5.

    1. George Washington – born 1732 – President 1789 to 1797
    2. John Adams – born 1735 – President 1797 to 1801
    3. Thomas Jefferson – born 1743 – President 1801 to 1809
    4. James Madison– born 1751 – President 1809 to 1817
    5. James Monroe – born 1758 – President 1817 to 1825
    6. John Quincy Adams – born 1767 – President 1825 to 1829
    7. Andrew Jackson – born 1767 – President 1829 to 1837
    8. Martin Van Buren – born 1782 – President 1837 to 1841
    9. William Henry Harrison – born 1773 – President 1841 (died)
    10. John Tyler – born 1790 – President 1841 to 1845
    11. James K. Polk – born 1795 – President 1845 to 1849
    12. Zachary Taylor – born 1784 – President 1849 to 1850

    Clause 5 means that in 1841 John Tyler, President #10, was the FIRST Clause 5 at the "... time of adoption..." of the Constitution in 1787 "natural born Citizen” to be elected President.

    For our BIG Talker "thought leaders"...
    ... what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?


  7. It means born to two US citizen parents on US soil . The fraud obama is NOT a Natural Born US Citizen and therefore is holding office illegally . Demand US Constitutional law be enforced and the fraud obama removed ASAP .

    1. And Rubio and Jindal and all like them declared ineligible.