Spread the love


by John Charlton

Palin has gone from McCain supporter to eligibility denier; but then, one position is only a short step from the other.

(Feb. 18, 2010)  —  In a push to get every political personality to uphold Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency, America has been assaulted in recent days by a wave of propaganda, derision, misinformation and downright lies.

First there was FOX News which attacked Gubernatorial candidates that favored constitutional principles, claiming that Hawaii’s State Government had authenticated the forgery Obama has been spouting for three years as a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth.  Then the New York Times wrote a long piece deriding the members of the Tea Party Movement as fringe fear-mongers.

Last night, however, came the coup de grace, when Bill O’Reilly, who has on notable occasions in the past taken great pains to use every form of rhetoric against U.S. Citizens who want to see the U.S. Constitution upheld, trotted out Sarah Palin, and trounced the Eligibility Movement as a fringe that does not belong in the Tea Party Movement.

For those who would never admit that Palin has sided with forces which despise the restrictions of Article II, Section I, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution — which categorically requires a presidential candidate to be, not only a U.S. Citizen, but also a natural born one, that is, born of two U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil, the interview will come as a cruel shock.  Utter betrayal and treachery.

Here is the video proof from last nights show.  Watch the segment beginning at 2:09 minutes into the clip:

Here is the transcript, for those who cannot access the video:

O’Reilly: There is no doubt that the New York Times wants to brand the tea party as a bunch of extremist loons… But there is danger, if some tea party people play into that… if they do say we’re getting our guns and we’re gonna overthrow, and Obama is this and Obama is that… and he isn’t born here… I mean there was a ‘birther’ thing going on at the convention… You don’t believe in the birther thing, do you?

Palin: No… not in those wild conspiracy theories about our own government um… I think shouldn’t have a part of the dialogue of the debate. What the debate needs to be about is the good ideas, the foundational principles that built this country into the most prosperous and healthiest and most voluntarily generous nation on Earth, safest place too. We need to get back to…

O’Reilly: But I am unclear, I am unclear… do you think that the birther people should have a place at the Tea Party table, do you think that they should have a place there?

Palin: There is always going to be an element of those who want to be a part of a movement who have their own ideas of where the country should go, or what is going on with the country…

O’Reilly: Then what do you do with those people, do you accept them and embrace them?

Palin: Well, one, you don’t take away their first amendment… you don’t take away their first amendment rights and we say you cannot speak about those things or ask those questions that you want answers to… that is part of democracy at work… is those debates…

O’Reilly: But do you see the danger that if that becomes the headline then the mainstream American who isn’t really following it that closely?

Palin: I see the danger of more of the same of the mainstream media wanting to paint tea partyers as radical wacko conspiracy theorists and if we allow that to happen, then no… this grassroots movement of the people wanting their voice to be heard because there is such a disconnect between what is going on in Washington and the people that Washington is supposed to be serving.

I interviewed one anonymous patriot who saw the show about what he thought about Palin’s claims of “wacko conspiracy” theories.  His response was:

So ‘birthers’ seeking to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against a domestic enemy by “questioning with boldness” whether Obama would be a “natural born citizen” who would be eligible to serve as POTUS and CIC of America’s Armed Forces are fomenting wild conspiracy theories, which shouldn’t have a part of the dialogue of the debate?

He then emphasized Palin’s contradictions when she spoke about “foundational principles:”

Where one of those foundational principles, which was codified in the Constitution of the United States of America at Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, as a qualification for the Office of the President, was:

No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.

So ‘birthers’ are fomenting wild conspiracy theories when they debate upon foundational principles?

Indeed, if that is not a foundational principle, one wonders what are Palin’s foundational principles:  money or Sharia Law? Or both.

Palin showed herself suspect during the week of 9/12, 2009, when instead of attending the Tea Party Rally in Washington, D.C., with more than 1.7 million other patriots, she went to Hong Kong to speak with financiers behind closed doors.

Now that she has attended one Tea Party Convention in Tennessee, dominated by GOP-controlled interests, she feels fit to lecture America about how those who do not abandon the U.S. Constitution are fostering wild conspiracy theories?

Mrs. Palin, I ask you:  is it a wild conspiracy theory that Barack Hussein Obama, Junior, had a father who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and that he himself is still a British subject from birth?  If not, please tell America how a natural born citizen of the United States of America can be, by the laws of Nature and men, a British subject his entire life?

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. What planet have you, Palin and O’Reiily been on, CaroL? O’Reilly dares to call loyal, level headed American patriots those Alinskyite names and ignore documented evidence? His arrogance and stupidity know no bounds. Do NOT place your trust in this man. I haven’t watched Fox since he disgracefully carried water for the Marxist Usurper during the 2008 campaign. We have the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War, while certain people who should be our allies are AWOL, or even acting like enemies.

    I assure you that we are not “wingnuts,” “radical wacko conspiracy theorists,” “extremist loons,” etc., etc.

    Carol, please tune in to these channels for a while, instead of the “fair and balanced” (LOL!) one:


    I hope you will be receptive to studying the evidence and making up your OWN mind.

    George Miller
    Obama State Ballot Challenge

  2. Sarah kept it positive, focused on the real issue: making government accountable, she stood up for First Amendment rights, declined to speak for the Tea Partiers, and acknowledged that the issue could be used to make Tea Partiers look bad, which is true, it could be used that way. She didn’t say birthers are wrong. This headline is *wrong*. SP did not say eligibility should not be part of the debate. Anyone who claims she said that is trying to split the movement and alienate birther conservatives from SP.
    She handled it well. I just wish she – and O’Reilly- would speak in grammatically complete sentences.

  3. Until it is proven in either court or official documentation they would only give fuel to Obama’s Obamabots. You don’t have anything more then was out before Obama was elected. We may not see about Obama until he is not in the white house. The dems are using the many times it has been thrown out of court. There just isn’t enough info to back up everything. It is just hard to believe not one judge in America to hear this case. The lady Medina I think she did that to herself. She said that everything wasn’t in on whether 9/11 was an inside job. I just could not believe she said it. You want to elect someone who think the government was involved with 9/11?

    Mrs. Rondeau replies: There is plenty of evidence that Obama is not a natural born Citizen. The Dems are the ones who are making sure that no judge hears a case on the merits. However, the fraud perpetrated on our nation will not stand. The truth always comes out, eventually.

  4. It is clear that everyone is afraid of a racial uprising(burning. looting. pillaging). Beck and Oreilly are slaves to FOX news and in some ways to Chicago politics(Obama threats,remember Dobbs is gone; shot at right!).

    Do you think they will expose their families? Beck is very scared you can see it when he is on TV, and if this goes away where is his story and audience( BECK is hiding in a lie, HE will not address the issue of OBAMAs Kenyan father.

    The Constitution is clear OBAMA is not the child of two US parents his father is Kenyan he cannot be POTUS.

  5. I think we are being scammed by Palin. I thinkThat Beck and O’Reilly are turncoats and have hypocritical tendencies. Beck questioned 9/11 too I have heard him. He too had doubts about what was going on with this. I have lost respect for Beck and O’reilly and they can shove their hypocritical selves where the sun don’t shine! I will do what ever I can to discredit these punks.

  6. After what we saw Beck do to Medina who said she believes there are still questions that remained unanswered about the govt.’s explanation of 9/11, what do you think O’Reilly/FOX/lamestream media would do if Palin said she believes obama is usurping the office of POTUS?

    Watching the interview was one thing. Reading the transcript makes it abundantly clear – O’Reilly/FOX is trying to trap her to destroy her reputation. All that was missing was the theme to Jaws in the background.

  7. C.Scott says:
    Friday, February 19, 2010 at 7:23 AM

    “I have emailed them a number of times about this pamphlet , not even a reply. This is flat out Fraud by the USCIS.”

    In my original complaint part of the ‘relief’ I sought was for the USCIS to make available ‘Certifications Citizenship” denoting the NBC status upon the proof of birth circumstances. Judge Friot made light of that.

    Well, I submitted the Application N-600. It was answered by saying that the ‘proof’ I submitted indicated I was born a Citizen and therefore they need do no more.

    I have Appealed that decision to the Administrative Appeals Office under the Rules stating;

    “Although an idiom used in M-76, ‘The Citizens Almanac’, is not found anywhere in the Constitution and may or may not be consistent with the circumstances intended by the Constitution it remains clear in reading and intent of the statement that the USCIS, under authority of the DHS, has assumed the ability and authority to determine, insofar as citizenship eligibility is concerned, who may and/or may not be a ‘qualified/eligible citizen’ for the purpose of obtaining to the offices of President and/or Vice President of the United States of America.

    Therefore I renew my request for certification as a citizen Constitutionally eligible for the offices of President and or Vice President insofar as the subject of citizenship is concerned, that of being a (American) Natural Born Citizen.”

    I intentionally kept the argument brief and specific, but included a copy of the FOIA request asking for ALL information pertaining to any and all authorities, opinions, legal, findings, considerations, determinations, conclusions, memo’s, and or notations that led to the ‘subject statements’ inclusion in the publication…in whatever form or media.

    I intend to get to the bottom of this outrage even if it means going all the way back to the SCOTUS, especially now that I will be able to satisfy the ‘standing and jurisdiction’ concerns of a case and controversy.

  8. It is a ridiculous set-up by Bill O’Reilly to try to smear the birthers and tie them to the Tea Party.

    Obama’s birth certificate is not a core principle of the Tea Party. It is smaller gov, strong on defense, lower taxes and such. O’Reilly wants to try to create divisions in the Tea Party. O’Reilly wants to try to force the Tea Party to condemn people who hold a belief that he disagrees with.

    O’Reilly and Beck have both contradicted each other – and even themselves with their analysis of the issue. If they can’t even agree with each other or themselves about the facts how can the matter be so definitively settled?

  9. “native-born citizens’, as opposed to the ‘idiom’ ‘natural born citizen’, being eligible for POTUS/V-POTUS, as published in their M-76 pamphlet ‘The Citizens Almanac’”


    I have emailed them a number of times about this pamphlet , not even a reply. This is flat out Fraud by the USCIS.
    Heck , even the Mexican Constitution requires the President to be a Natural Born Citizen. Our own Gov. can’t even get the wording of our Constitution straight.

    Thanks for your efforts.

    John ,
    Thanks for your efforts as well with the state of HI

  10. The treachery of the entire government is exposed in this one easy to prove law. They intentionally broke it to suit their will. That there is no avenue of law to right the breach is well known to them as they have now three branches of government in league and all agree that government knows best. Thats despotism folks. It is only a matter of time until we see the product of greed and power when they unite. I hope your screams of “but I have rights” land on sympathetic ears.

  11. I’ve listened to the many comments here criticizing my coverage of this interview, and have rewritten the subtitle to reflect more accurately what Palin actually said.

  12. What we Birthers need is a creditable ‘WIN’ in some forum or venue.

    Good luck to Mr. Charlton who has just taken on the HI. DHS Okubo for an unresponsive obfuscation of Birth data info. Should the entire Department be proved as not ‘creditable’ it attaches directly to the ‘0’, (who is losing creditability within his own party)

    I am involved in two actions with the USCIS/DHS, an Appeal on an N-600 Application denoting my NBC Status, insofar as citizenship is concerned and awaiting a response to a FOIA request from the same service and department that could prove to be an unraveling of the obfuscation’s being disseminated in regards to the use of the term ‘native-born citizens’, as opposed to the ‘idiom’ ‘natural born citizen’, being eligible for POTUS/V-POTUS, as published in their M-76 pamphlet ‘The Citizens Almanac’.

    Although I failed the tests of ‘standing and jurisdiction’ in my initial efforts, I have not ceased in my efforts.

    While I wait for the outcomes of these endeavors I intend to take up Mr. Charltons call to action in letters to the ‘Officers’ in Hi. as he suggests.

    Remember that we only need to ‘WIN’ once, so even failing 68, 108, 1008 times is but a small price.

  13. She knows she would have been skewered all over the antique media, not to mention on the spot by O’Reilly, as a “birther”/”loon” if she didn’t answer the way he wanted. She’s not going to beat him in an argument. He would have jumped down her throat, trotted out his talking points, and if she isn’t fully familiar with the issue and proper rebuttals to O’Reilly’s “facts”, he would have humiliated her on air – the clip of which would have then burned up the web.
    Interesting though he seems to be bringing the issue up with more frequency.


    Mr. Charlton replies: While what you say is true, I think most Americans would want a presidential hopeful to

    1) Know the issues
    2) Be willing to bet a hack like O’Reilly at his own game, by giving it back to him on the air
    3) Have the moral fiber to fight, not dance around the issue

    Personally, I would not want to see another individual with Palin’s character in the White House, we need leadership; and there are a lot better women out there, who have it.

    1. I’d have loved nothing more than if she responded with something as simple as, “Why is he bothering to fight all the lawsuits?” But you know O’Reilly would have had none of it, ignored the question, feigned incredulity and launched into his “the Governor of HI said..”, “the Dept of Health said…”, “the birth announcements in the paper…” rubbish. If she pushed him he would have ended up talking over her/shouting her down. It was a lose/lose worse scenario. She’s new to the network and O’Reilly’s king sh*t over there. He’d have replayed the clip the following night to stroke his own ego, (“because we’ve received a lot of feedback on it”), then presented “reaction” and “analysis” from a trusty Fox contributor – who of course would have sided completely with O’Reilly, and added that Palin probably hurt herself politically for entertaining “fringe conspiracy theories”. Then O’Reilly in a concerned, fatherly, cautionary tone would have offered Palin advice on being an effective political news analyst at Fox, etc. You can write the script.


      Mr. Charlton replies: HG, you need to ask yourself if you want a president who can be manipulated by Bill O’Reilly. In my book, that’s proof that you do not have the character necessary to lead and defend the nation.

  14. Google who brokered Palin’s book deal and see for yourself where her loyalties lie. She helped throw the 2008 election and will certainly throw the 2012 election if people are dumb enough to run her against Obama. Fool me once, shame on you… fool me twice…

  15. What “foundational principals” are Patriots seeking to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy, by “questioning with boldness” whether Obama would be a “natural born citizen” who would be eligible to serve as POTUS and CIC of America’s Armed Forces?

    The Founder’s intent for including “natural born citizen” as one of the qualifications for the office of POTUS, in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which states:

    No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.

    The Constitution of the United States was ratified by nine States on 21 Jun 1788, when it became the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, the qualifications for the office of POTUS have been foundational principles, ever since the Constitution was ratified. There have been no amendments, which have changed the qualifications for the office of POTUS since the Constitution was ratified. So the qualifications for the office of POTUS are still the Supreme Law of the Land.

    In Washington’s eulogy, Henry Lee stated:

    “Methinks I see his august image and I hear falling from his venerable lips these deep sinking words:

    … shut up every avenue to foreign influence,…

    Based on Washington’s letters, recently published at: http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com

    Would it have been reasonable for Washington to have said that?

    And then in 1866, John A. Bingham appears to have echoed “shut up every avenue to foreign influence”, when he stated:

    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”

    John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

  16. I’m looking at this thru a different filter than many here, because I no longer have any faith in the right – whether you call them RINOs, Conservatives or Republicans. They’ve all sold us out. My faith is in the American people and our Constitution.

    But here’s my thought on this: Smart people learn from their mistakes. Really smart people learn from others’ mistakes. Sarah knows firsthand how the right has turned on McCain for not towing the party line. Despite McCain’s longstanding record of absolutely no earmarks, his staunch pro-life stance (“life begins at conception”), a big 2nd Amendment proponent, and his noted military history, McCain is attacked constantly. It’s not even about issues now; just McCain hating. Some conservatives attacked McCain more than Obama during the elections – and still do. No one fought Obama’s crazy spending harder (“generational theft”). No one fought Obamacare harder than McCain, but he gets no credit. Despite McCain’s previous support for a cap-and-trade plan, McCain fought Obama’s cap-and-tax plan, but he gets no credit. There is no redemption for McCain. Now it’s even okay to attack his daughter “just because”, much the same way the left attacks Sarah.

    Which brings me back to my point… I understand that many (MANY!) Republicans/Conservatives feel McCain deserves it, but does Sarah think he deserves it? Perhaps Sarah has a different perspective, and learned very well what happens when you cross the wrong Conservatives. Sarah is also a “Maverick” which could easily be turned against her to RINO also…. Some conservatives have already turned on Sarah over the TEA Party Convention Speech, others for campaigning for McCain in his senate race, and still others never liked her to begin with. What wrong misstep would have all her support evaporate? Like maybe for daring to publicly support the Birthers?

    I don’t know if that makes her just another low-life politician (I hope and pray not)… or if it means she’s watching her step for now, getting her bearings and scoping out the political territory so to speak. For now I’ll just appreciate that she focused on our Constitutional right to free speech instead of bashing the Birthers.

    Mr. Charlton, as always, thank you.

    1. I like how you are looking at things but you need to clear yourself from the MCcain syndrome. He is behaving and acting in the way he is now because he lost a major campaign. He has seen the rise of the tea party and says whooa I’m running for Sen. again so I better get on the bandwagon. Look MCCain has constantly vasilated between conservatism and liberalism (progressive) . I do not trust him nor do I trust Newt Gingrich and now I will not Trust Sarah the Barracuda either! MCCain is a progressive for sure. Yes he is for some things now but if the Dems were to put up a stink .. they become his “friends” accross the isle and will “comprimise” with them even if it means its against the constitution or some of our rights will be violated…. look its called consistency and he has none. Time for new blood… Go JD

  17. Giving Palin the benefit of the doubt… this may have been her thought process…

    O’reilly had just framed the question like… what about those ‘birther’ extremist loons and then proceeded to paint them as pushing conspiracy theories before asking… You don’t believe in the ‘birther’ thing, do you?

    Palin answered with… “No… not in those wild conspiracy theories about our own government um… I think shouldn’t have a part of the dialogue of the debate.”

    She lumped everything Bill said under “those wild conspiracy theories” including the ‘birther’ thing… then she seems to have realized that she just equated the ‘birther’ thing as “those wild conspiracies” as evidenced by “um” [she lost her train of thought there…].

    Then the rest her statement was clumsily trying to recover from that, which she did do better when she stated:

    “What the debate needs to be about is the good ideas, the foundational principles that built this country into the most prosperous and healthiest and most voluntarily generous nation on Earth, safest place too.”

    However that was a contradiction of:

    “No… not in those wild conspiracy theories about our own government um… I think shouldn’t have a part of the dialogue of the debate.”

    Even more so when ‘birthers’… scratch that… “Patriots” are questioning Obama’s eligibility as POTUS and CIC of America’s Armed Forces due to Barack Hussein Obama Junior/Barry Soetoro/Steve Dunham, having a father who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and that he himself is still a British subject from birth.

    That fact, in and of itself, excludes Obama from being a “natural born citizen”. It also excludes him from being eligible to serve as POTUS. If he is not eligible to serve as POTUS, then he is not eligible to serve as CIC of America’s Armed Forces.

    1. Hi, me again,
      Maybe I’m wrong but I thought the Tea Party movement encompassed many differing views. Some are “birthers”, (a badge I wear with honor), some emphasize 2nd amendment rights, (I own a gun… know how to use it… hope I never need to), some are worried about how our 10th amendment rights have eroded, ect., but all seem to be in favor of limited government. All seem to be in favor of returning to the Constitution, which, if that were to occur, would effectively take care of all of our concerns. Wouldn’t it? Are we going to break up into different denominations? “I’m a Baptist! I hate those Methodists.” Are we not all believers in the Constitution, a most incredible document, that has secured our liberties for many generations, but has gradually been eroded by agents of Evil? Let’s work together to restore it’s honor in the hearts of Americans. Let’s each do our part, whatever it might be.
      Thanks, Susie

  18. John,

    Actually, Sarah Palin dodged the eligibility issue, like a typical ‘old-style’ politician. We’ve had it with that ‘safe’ approach to politics. What we demand and what The USA needs, is plain speaking and boldness from Patriots who put Country First.

  19. John;

    I also watched the segment, and disagree. I think that Ms. Palin answered brilliantly, and in no way gave in to the rantings and left-wing questions by the disgusting Bill O’Reilly. He couldn’t even look her in the eyes as he made his treasonous remarks and asked his stupid questions.

    Sarah did not in any way agree with his premise that the Article II Constitutionalists (pejoratively called ‘Birthers/Birfers’) were ‘dangerous loonies’, and instead turned the whole discussion into one of the real danger being those who (like Bill O’Reilly) don’t think people should be able to question their government (or any FOX News blowhards, for that matter).

    Please take a second look at this article, John, and perhaps temper it with the discussion on this issue yesterday by Rush Limbaugh:

    “Folks, I’ll say again, Sarah Palin is not a tea partier, she spoke there, but she is a Republican, and I’ve interviewed her a couple times for my newsletter and the radio show, but I haven’t gotten into any of this kind of thing. We talked about her bio and her book. So my guess is as good as yours. But I think if she’s going to have a political career, it’s going to have a big capital R next to her name, not a capital TP or some other party, not third party. She’s going to go Republican. And there are just rules. Politics is repulsive to a lot of people for a lot of different reasons, but the one thing that she knows — I mean, you’ve seen the story about how she went into Daytona and totally took over the place. Danica Patrick who? ”


    Mr. Charlton replies: If I were not sympathetic to Mrs. Palin, I certainly would not allow so many comments in her favor as I am doing.

    My point for running the piece is at the beginning where she says NO…and later on where she talks about fundamental principles but speaks very deferentially of those questioning the fulfillment of fundamental principle.

    I think it is an objective statement that Palin does not consider herself one who questions Obama eligiblity, but who recognizes the rights of others to do so, even if she considers them on the side lines of political normality. In other words, she wants to act in such a way to garner their support and hope, but she won’t ever act on their demands. A slick DC Politician style of approach.

  20. Not surprising…..the Tea Party movement has shied away from the birth questions from the get-go……they want nothing to do with it and I’m sure they told Palin she could not support the “birther” thing….she is NO dummy though because she already was quoted as saying citizens have every right to question the FRAUD about his birth……she was asked about it right after the Deal letter became public…….O’Reilly didn’t get anything out of her except that the Tea Parties aren’t supporting that….which is true…..doesn’t mean Palin doesn’t believe that the FRAUD in our house is legal!!!!


    We have a Pal in Palin!!

    1. There is no doubt about it, Palin made McCain more palatable in 2008.

      However, it remains to be seen whether she has the gravitas to stand strong upon the Constitution of the United States and return our form of government to the representative Republic that the founders of this great Nation gave us. Whenever I see her making inroads in to accomplishing that, I will support her for President in 2012.

      However, her weak stand on the constitutional ineligibility of the current resident of the White House to date and her campaigning for the re-election of progressive McCain appears to prove her “Going Rogue” would really be just more of the same disconnect between what is going on in Washington and the people that Washington is supposed to be serving.

      1. Going rogue would have meant supporting Tea Party Activist Debra Medina for Texas Governor. She is the true conservative in the race for the Republican nomination.

        Going rogue would have meant supporting JD Hayworth for US Senator from Arizona instead of the moderate McCain — a man who could not defeat an inexperienced Marxist from Chicago.

  21. John I watched the segement last night on O’Reilly and I didn’t get that impression at all!! I think O’Reilly is a bully and this stuff about banging on the “Birthers” is going to come back to haunt him and Beck!!! There’s no way when all this comes out that they can defend themselves!! Both of these men will be sent packing along with MSM !!!! The American people have woken up and it’s just a matter on time now!!! People like you and Mario and Charles, Citizen Wells and all others aren’t going to drop this and
    millions of us are pulling for disclosure of this FAKE, FRUAD, and destructive president!!!

  22. I take offense to O’Reilly lumping in those who question Obama’s eligibility as loons. O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity have all allowed this issue never to surface for a real debate. Only on talk radio is the issue discussed and the best programs for real analysis are on internet radio with speakers like Mario Apuzzo laying out why Obama is Not a natural born citizen and eligible to hold his office.

  23. Dear John,

    It’s possible this might not be as bad as you suspect. At least that was my take from reading the transcript (I’m truly sorry, I can’t even bring myself to watch clips of O’Reilly anymore).

    She was first asked about eligibility people after O’Reilly had lumped “birthers” in with those who supposedly want violent options in regard to BO, which the eligibility movement strongly rejects. Since the first eligibility question apparently came close on the heals of that overly general background, she may have said such a wide group of people shouldn’t be part of the tea party movement due to wild conspiracy theories.

    That her first response wasn’t a clear condemnation of the eligibility people, I think, is seen by O’Rielly next leaving out the false association he tried to make at first between the eligibility movement and violence, and then wanting a “clear” answer specifically about “birthers.” In this clear, stand alone context, I don’t see her condemning the eligibility movement, even working to avoid condemning it. I fear in the days ahead, she’ll have to give further “clarifications” until she comes out fully and condemns the eligibility movement. But I don’t quite see that here. Who knows? Maybe she’ll continue to squirm out of it like here.

    By the way, on Tuesday Beck also tried to insinuate a connection between the eligibility movement and “violent acts on the right” by mentioning them in close contexts. That was the last Beck show for me. I would like to mention that I think Beck is angling to be O’Reilly’s replacement in a number of years whenever O’Reilly retires. I think that is a reason Beck became more like O’Reilly, especially on the eligibility issue. I noticed that Beck’s direct attacks on the eligibility movement came at the beginning of this year, almost at the same time he announced he was going on tour with O’Reilly.

    I will repeat what I said recently: These attacks from Fox and the right mean we are winning. The eligibility issue is getting through. It only takes a few basic facts for people to realize the importance of the issue–and how sane it is. Keep up the great work, John. It is appreciated!

  24. Like Susie – I had a slightly different take than this article states. I saw the segment last night and I felt O’Reilly was, as he does all his guests, bullying Palin into saying what he WANTED her to say. He has a way of guiding the conversation and steering the answers to make his point.

    In some ways Palin is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. I don’t like the fact that she, in some ways, flaked out – but I’m sure she walks a thin line every time she speaks publicly.

    I like Palin, but I get the gut feeling she has been Washingtonized and is not the down-home conservative we first met when McCain announced his running mate. Humans are just that – human; they have faults and letting power and notoriety go to their heads is a huge one – just look at Obama.

    I like her, but the jury is still out on where she stands. She needs to stop being wishy-washy and letting O’Reilly put words in her mouth.

  25. If she believed in the question, she would be the “interested person”. That’s all we need to know. Either that or she is just scared.

    Does anybody think that if the tables would have been turned that algore wouldn’t have raced to the dc court as the “interested person”. The only difference is that the media would have cheered him on, so it would be ok.

    Who really knows what her motivations are, but whatever they are, they are not manifesting into something that we can support. She won’t ever get the vote of either the left or the david brooks republicans, and now she is throwing away what should be her base of strongest support.

  26. Dear Mr. Charlton,
    I saw the interview with O’Reilly and I had a slightly different take. I felt that O’Reilly was doing the bidding of the Left by deliberately trying to turn Tea Party people against one another. I fully support and believe in your interest in Obama’s eligibility question, and I pray daily for a breakthrough that will demand the attention of the American people, sort of like the exposure of the global warming hoax is beginning to do. But I fear that the conservative cause is in danger of splintering. We all have our part to do to bring our beloved USA back to sanity. You have yours, others have a different tack. Let’s not attack each other. Let’s get the job done.

    With great respect,
    Susie Thomas

    1. Susie:

      I felt just like you all the way through the 08 election. Voted for mccain as the lesser of two evils. I can”t do it anymore. Our country is becoming a socialist collossus weighed down by a mountain of debt and all that voting for the lesser of two evils will get you is a slightly longer journey on the road to serfdom.

      I’ve got to go with something else now. A complete change. Maybe the constitution party. I don’t know for sure, but I do know that we need a wholesale change, not just republicans who want to, as mccain stated in one of the debates, “have the gov’t buy up all the mortgage debt in the country”. I’m still amazed at that statement. If that wasn’t a wake up call to all republicans that this isn’t our forefathers party anymore, i don’t know what is. It took me until after the election to finally realize it, but I’m voting for the constitution from now on even if my candidate gets one vote. mine.

      1. Your vote for a third or fourth party is a vote for Obama.
        The thing to do is to get inside the GOP and change it. That’s a lot easier than the long shot of trying to establish a third party.


        Mr. Charlton replies: There are 2 kinds of third parties: those who only endorse their own candidates, and those who use their control of a fraction of the electorate to get a major party candidate which is to their way of thinking elected, and abandoning those which don’t to loose. Such an approach could be used by the Tea Party to twist the arms of the RNC to put constitutional candidates on the ballot.

        However, if we all stoppled being the political sheepeople that the liberal media and Rhino’s want us to be and have trained us to be with deafeatist ideas, of the kind you just repeated, then we could form our own party and win the White House and both houses of Congress. It would only take a determined effort to allow nobodies to run for office, supported by the vast mass of 99% nobodies which each of us is.

        That’s a radical idea, nobodies voting for nobodies.

        In a monarchy, peasants don’t dare do such things, they only support members of the nobility.

        And that is by the RNC and the DNC are supporting a slide to artistocracy and monarchy/tyranny, because they have that same elitist view of politics.

        Ace, think about it: you are playing into their hands, but such a low opinion of yourself and your fellow common men and women!

  27. So John I guess supporting the Constitution means being on the fringe. SHE IS NOW THE NEXT NEOCON TO REPLACE GLOBALIST NEO-LIB OBAMA!


    1. I’ll say it again, I called Ron Paul’s office and spoke at length about the unconstitutional usurper born of non-US citizen father, and they are not in agreement with the constitutionalist movement at all. So do not kid yourself, Ron Paul has toed the line and is towing the line for the entire “don’t ask don’t tell (about the usurper)” movement.