Is The Daily Caller on the Side of Truth, or Consequences?

RIGHT-LEANING NEWS SOURCE SQUELCHES OBAMA DOCUMENT FRAUD COMMENT

by Sharon Rondeau

(May 4, 2015) — In an article dated May 3, 2015 and reposted in part at BirtherReport, Eric Owens of The Daily Caller opined that “Birthers” will “Have a FIELD DAY” during the 2016 presidential primary cycle as a result of several candidates whose constitutional qualifications have been called into question.

Among those candidates are Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  Other non-declared individuals who may or may not announce their candidacy are Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

“The birthers are at it again,” Owens stated in his third paragraph before going on to describe Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, author of “The Law of Nations,” as an “obscure European civil servant” and “bureaucrat” “writing in a provincial Swiss town.”

In his article, Owens stated:

Modern-day proponents of Vattel’s “natural-born citizen” definition also claim — with scant evidence — that other prominent founders swore by Vattel’s “natural-born” definition including John Jay, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Below the text of the article on page 2, numerous reader comments appear.  On Monday morning at 8:47 EDT, The Post & Email logged in with its Twitter account and left the following comment:

Some excellent research has been done in which the writer actually found references in the Congressional Globe of the reliance placed on Vattel’s work by the Framers: http://www.unslaveamerica.com/usurper-obama/, including on the matter of “allegiance.”

In a July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington, future U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay stressed why only a “natural born Citizen,” as opposed to simply “a Citizen” as first suggested by the Framers, should hold the highest office in the land and the “command in chief” of the “american army”: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/john-jay-to-george-washington/

Also, what about Obama’s fraudulent documents? We don’t really know who he is or where he comes from.

This may be the biggest political crime in U.S. history, and you haven’t reported a word about it: http://mcsoccp.org/joomla/

Sharon Rondeau, Editor

The Post & Email

www.thepostemail.com

The comment appeared for several seconds; upon refreshing the page, it was gone, never to reappear.

The following comment submitted after The Post & Email’s survived moderation:

A second comment left subsequent to The Post & Email’s reads:

At least half of Conservative TDC commenters are birthers.

4 Responses to "Is The Daily Caller on the Side of Truth, or Consequences?"

  1. Bob1939   Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 2:50 PM

    An interesting message from Gabe Zolna… https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ixa9cXTZ1hk#t=123

  2. Stephen Hiller   Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 7:13 AM

    Yesterday I was trying to discuss “natural born” with a Liberal friend whom I love dearly. But, like Hillary, she maintains “what difference does it make?”. I guess some concepts just don’t register with Liberals. (Did I mention she’s a school teacher?)

  3. ss442   Monday, May 4, 2015 at 11:47 PM

    The problem with Cruz is “plural”. He is supposed to be a law man of sorts that does not follow the law or try to expose law breakers like Obama and voter fraud through false identity docs.

    Then there is the natural born citizen thing.

    Then there is the fact Cruz is the third or 4th largest spender in the senate.

    Then he wants to increase H1-b visas to 326,000 when there aren’t enough jobs for all the US engineers getting out of school

    Then he wants to give Obama this TPP fast rack authority that is right up Cruz’s big money friends coat tails and hoses US citizens. People negotiating this thing have to sign non-disclosure agreements to keep it all secret. Way to go Cruz.

    His wife Heidi has endorsed agenda 21 but I am sure there is no guilt by association.

  4. thinkwell   Monday, May 4, 2015 at 10:23 AM

    Ms. Rondeau,

    Unfortunately, many self-styled “conservative” websites are all too willing to suppress free speech that deviates from their particular agenda or questions the consistency of their views.

    This morning all of my posts to the American Clarion questioning Ted Cruz’s legitimacy as a presidential candidate were removed and my posting privileges there were blocked.

    For the record, here are the words that the American Clarion found too offensive to post. http://www.americanclarion.com/ted-cruz-like-father-like-son-38004

    Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen the moment he appeared in the Canadian doctor’s hands who caught him as he was born, but if his mother hadn’t bothered to register him with the American consul and his family hadn’t moved to America when Ted was four, he wouldn’t be an American citizen at all. A natural born Citizen doesn’t need to be registered at the consulate and move to America. A natural born American is born exclusively American (like me or most of you reading this). Ted Cruz was born with naturally divided allegiance among Canada, Cuba and America. Not eligible. The Constitution still matters (at least to true conservatives).

    If you support Cruz, you are no conservative and you are a traitor to the Constitution. Until he renounced his Canadian citizenship just this year he was as much Canadian as American. He was born in a foreign land to a foreign father (who didn’t even bother to become an American until 2005, by the way) and an American mother. He was born two parts alien and only one part American. Is that what you call a natural born Citizen? I don’t think so. Ted Cruz was born with naturally divided allegiance. He is not eligible to become a legitimate president. Support and defend the Constitution and vote for someone like Scott Walker or Sarah Palin or Rick Perry or Alan West.

    When an alien naturalizes as an American, we require that he or she take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the USA and that he or she renounce all former allegiances. A naturalized citizen is not permitted dual citizenship or split allegiance. This is the standard for naturalized citizens, yet they are barred from becoming president because they were not born meeting this standard. Clearly a natural born Citizen must meet this same standard, but must meet it from birth on and must meet it naturally without the need of any additional naturalization process.

    Naturalization itself clarifies that the presidential eligibility standard must be for exclusive 100 percent allegiance to the USA. “Natural born” clarifies that this standard must be met naturally from birth on. A natural born Citizen clearly is one who has never had any allegiance to any country but the USA, which can be clearly met by requiring one be born of USA citizen parents within USA territory. Blood and Dirt

    Ted knows that aka obama got away with trashing the Constitution by posing as the leftist messiah, so if Ted can do the same thing, but only from the right, why not him, too?

    Ted knows that he is ineligible — he has just let his personal political ambition overpower his love of Constitution.

    Is that what you want? Really? When there are millions and millions of true natural born Citizens to chose from, do you really think killing the Constitution is going to save the country? No one man is a magic bullet.

    I like Ted Cruz’s comfort with Christianity, but I wish Ted were a natural born Citizen and not born in a foreign land to an alien father who did not bother to naturalize as an American until more than three decades later.

    Since Ted Cruz moved to the USA when still a toddler, I do not think his Canadian birth had a significant influence on his developing allegiance. I worry more about the influence of an alien father who could not trouble himself to become an American citizen until decades after he was first eligible. What kind of lesson to Ted was that? (Rafael Cruz was a Cuban when Ted was born, but became a Canadian before moving to the USA when Ted was four. Even though he was eligible for citizenship after five years, he didn’t bother becoming an American until additional 26 years later in 2005.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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