Rush Limbaugh Program - April 29, 2011, Friday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 29, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:40

April 29, 2011, Friday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in, no supporting paperwork, undocumented, unnatural born, no long-form certificates of any kind whatsoever.
	Great to be with you.
	Royal Wedding Fever.
	Royal Wedding Fever on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	I love the way the feed, all the networks were carrying, I guess it must be from the BBC or whatever, basically taking the standard feed from London.
	And whoever was directing it at the BBC would obviously close in on dignitaries of interest, presumably to the BBC's audience.
	You know, look, there's the Earl of Ulster, and there's Lady Davina Windsor.
	And nobody at Shep Smith, I thought, at Fox had the best light on this.
	He said, I think he said it's like watching two teams, neither of whom you support, play a game.
	You're not even sure what game they're playing.
	And he made the best of it.
	But watching Diane Sawyer.
	I love the way.
	By the way, if we are still in a monarchical mood in the United States, why don't we just make Diane Sawyer queen?
	She's actually far queenlier than Queen Elizabeth.
	But she was doing that thing she does where she gets her eyebrows dancing.
	You know that thing, HR, when Diane Sawyer does the whole, her eyebrows start heading up faster than the debt ceiling.
	And you know she's got these anguished, agonized, caring eyebrows as she attempts to explain something that she hasn't, simply hasn't got a clue about.
	But Royal Wedding Fever at the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	So do tell us your opinion on the royal wedding because I know all you guys, particularly out there, the Howard Dean crowd in the pickup trucks with the Confederate flags.
	I know the Howard Dean crowd are all really following the Royal Wedding really closely.
	So do give us your opinion on that.
	1-800-282-2882.
	But as it is also the end of the week, you know what that means.
	Live from New York City.
	It's open wine Friday.
	Yes, Monday to Thursday.
	A highly trained broadcast specialist decides and restricts the range of subjects that we discuss on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	So if this was any day other than Friday, we would be talking about the royal wedding for the full three hours.
	But as it is Friday, that means you, the listener, the non-trained non-broadcast specialist, get to determine the content of this show.
	1-800-282-2882.
	Call me up and talk about whatever you want to talk about.
	Natural-born citizens, long-form birth certificates.
	I'll talk about any of it.
	You want to talk about the terrible problems they're having in Alabama and other states with the storms down there, amazing death tolls, and really not getting talked about in the media at the moment, which are all kind of focused on doing the soft-focused Barbara Walters Diane Sawyer stuff.
	You want to talk about that?
	1-800-282-2882.
	You want to talk about Paul Ryan's plans for Medicare?
	1-800-282-2882.
	I made a point yesterday that I just want to expand on a little bit today.
	And I said that it's easy to think that Barack Obama, in part because he does it himself.
	Well, you know, whoever thought that a man called Barack Hussein Obama would be president of the United States.
	It's easy to think of him as abnormal, as strange, as exotic.
	But the dangerous thing about Barack Obama is that there are millions of people who think exactly like him and that they have unprecedented access to the controlling levers of society.
	For example, if you take his view on foreign policy, which is essentially that the United States, we need a diminished role for the United States in the world because the United States has used its power for ill in the world.
	It has not been a force for good.
	Since the American era began after the Second World War, the United States has not been a force for good in the world.
	It has been a force for ill.
	And so it is necessary to restrain and diminish U.S. power in the interests of global harmony.
	You see that in what's happening in Libya, this instant quagmire, quagmire in a can.
	The quagmire you can quagmire in the microwave.
	Fastest quagmire in history, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, where Obama wanted to use it as an exercise in restraining American power.
	So he outsourced it to NATO.
	And as a result, now the rebels are losing towns.
	The rebels, we've come up with the only rebel movement that can't toss off the local strongman.
	And instead, they're losing towns, Gaddafi's taking back towns.
	And the British and the French, the British and the French, by the way, two of the biggest and most serious remaining militaries on the planet cannot knock off some nickel and dime loser presiding over a barren bitter desert.
	The British and French, two permanent members of the UN Security Council, cannot knock off some tinpot loser transvestite in the presidential palace in Tripoli.
	That's what it's come to.
	And that's the world without American power.
	Now, you think of how Barack Obama thinks of foreign policy.
	Everybody, everybody in the faculty of United States most prestigious educational institutions thinks that Barack Obama's view of the malign influence of the United States in the world is entirely normal.
	They don't think it's weird.
	They don't think it's odd.
	All the most influential figures, the world he lived in at the University of Chicago, these people think his views are normal and your view, your view, that on the whole the United States has been a benign superpower, yours is the weird view.
	Yours is the abnormal view.
	And this is the rise of Obama, the fact that 53% of the American people voted for this man to be president, despite his background and despite his views, is testament to the grip that these ideas have on key institutions in the United States.
	I mean, we make a I was joking yesterday about political correctness.
	I was joking yesterday about how unscientific feminist members of the American Academy of Physicians had got their head guy fired.
	They'd forced him to resign because he'd referred to a scientific survey marveling at the restorative properties of male sperm on women when they had unprotected sex.
	When it came to a choice between the science and the tenets of the feminist faith, the feminist members of the American Academy of Physicians said, no, the tenets of our feminist faith must outpunch the science, and this guy has to resign.
	He has to go.
	His career's over.
	He's the first man in the history of the American Academy of Physicians to have his career ended by vascularized vaginas.
	It's never happened before in human history.
	Never before, never before has a member of the American Academy of Physicians seen his career self-destruct over a vascularized vagina.
	And we think this is kind of wacky.
	It's not.
	It's the air that we breathe now in so many American institutions.
	My 10-year-old came home from school a couple of months ago, and I asked him, I said, oh, what did you do at school today?
	I'm like most dads.
	I'm not really interested.
	It's just a bit of pro forma stuff.
	I'm just going through the motions.
	I don't really want to know what the kid thinks.
	But he goes and he says, oh, it was great.
	I got to play part of the uterus lining.
	And I'm turning away and already sort of walking off.
	And I hear this.
	I think, hang on a minute, that can't be right.
	What do you mean?
	And my youngest boy goes, yeah, I got to be part of the uterine lining.
	And I say, well, what was this for?
	And it turns out they'd all gone into the school gym and reenacted the female body parts.
	And he had got to be one of five guys playing the uterine lining.
	Now, at that point, I'm kind of getting annoyed because, you know, I said I was hoping he'd get, you know, one of the starring roles.
	It turned out like his best friend got to be the cervix.
	But he just got to be one of five guys playing the uterine lining.
	Okay, how humiliating is that?
	That's like the gentleman of the chorus.
	That's like those prancing waiters in Hello Dolly.
	You know, you don't get to be the big star cervix, but you get to be one of the five guys playing the uterine lining.
	And he goes, oh, and then I was turned into blood and had to go through the vagina.
	I'm thinking, what?
	What's this about?
	And so I'm actually, I'm taking an interest in this now because, you know, they don't do any Shakespeare or anything.
	This is the nearest to a serious school play they get.
	He gets to be part of the chorus boys in the uterine lining.
	I said, well, who got to play the penis?
	And he says to me, they decided to eliminate the penis.
	Right there, that is the history of American education in a nutshell.
	The boys apparently had wanted to be the penis and thought they could all, you know, they could share the role and do the penis as a kind of Chinese dragon.
	And the teacher nicks that.
	No, no, no, we're not going to have.
	So they teach you the facts of life.
	They're exactly like the woman at the American Academy of Physicians did to the poor head guy, the president of the American Academy of Physicians.
	They teach you the so-called facts of life by eliminating one of the participants.
	So every boy and girl in the school, nobody gets to be the penis, but they all get to play different parts of female body parts.
	And then eventually, instead of having a penis, certain lucky boys get to walk in and out of the vagina all day long.
	Now, if I were to do this, by the way, if it was the other way around and my son went to school and the teacher said, what did you do?
	The very same teacher that had said, what did you do today?
	And said, oh, we played out in the yard and I got to be part of a uterine lining.
	The New Hampshire Social Services would take my kids away from me and say, oh, I'm an abuser.
	I'm a sick freak, kinky, insane abuser with paedophile tendencies, and the kids have got to be taken away from me.
	But it's apparently normal now.
	It's normal for grade schoolers to play part of the uterine lining.
	And I wouldn't mind, you know, in the scope of things, if you had a comprehensive education system, there would be room in it for uterine lining tendency studies.
	There was, I can't remember, I'm not sure I even know quite how the uterine lining all connects up with everything.
	He said a friend of his best friend, I think, got to be a one best friend got to be the cervix, and the other friend got to be a fallopian tube.
	Now, I've got to my advanced stage in life.
	I have no idea what a fallopian tube is.
	If I was walking through the street and a fallopian tube fell on my head, I wouldn't know what it was.
	But this, this, my, my son, one of his best friends got to play the fallopian tube in school.
	And I wouldn't mind fallopian tube studies being part of a comprehensive education system.
	But when you look at what we don't teach our children, when you look at American school children's declining performance in math, declining performance in science, declining performance in history, the idea that we've got time at school to dress them all up and play the uterus lining is simply absurd.
	And that's what we're up against here.
	What we've created is a world where Almost every key institution in society is in the hands of people who think like Barack Obama.
	Whenever I speak at high schools, for example, and I talk about this unsustainable debt, I talk about how interest payments on the debt are going to be covering the entire cost of the Chinese military within a couple of years, and they will make Medicare is going to collapse and Social Security is going to go.
	People are stunned by this.
	People don't believe it's true.
	Everybody thinks that all you need to do to make stuff better is to have more government spending.
	All you need to do to make the planet a safer place is for America to retreat from the world.
	And then all the nice people will get on without America bombing them all the time.
	Every key lever, every key institution in society is now controlled by forces profoundly hostile to conservatism.
	And that is why we cannot, don't be surprised when a country raised under those kind of institutions then elects somebody like Barack Obama in November of 2008.
	Why wouldn't they?
	When the air that you breathe is liberal, when the schoolhouses are liberal, when the sitcoms are liberal, when the pop songs are liberal, when the air that you breathe is liberal, it's asking an awful lot for people raised in that environment to then go and pull the lever for a small government conservative every other November.
	And this is the game we have to get back in, too.
	It's not enough just to defeat people every other November.
	We've got to actually start taking back these institutions, including the sitcoms and the pop songs, because actually they didn't used to be in the hands of crazy wacky liberals a couple of decades back.
	The churches, the mainline churches didn't used to be in the hands of crazy wacky liberals a couple of generations back.
	The schoolhouses didn't used to be in the hands of crazy wacky liberals a couple of generations back.
	We've seeded too much turf and we have to start taking it back.
	1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein in for Rush.
	Hey, Royal Wedding Disco Fiefheard, Open Line Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	1-800-282-2882.
	HR just asked me, by the way, I was talking about my son playing part of the chorus boys in the uterine lining at school, whether it was a musical.
	I mean, honestly, no HR.
	It wasn't Fallopian Tube, the musical, or actually that's not a bad idea, or Cervix, the musical.
	Actually, I saw Cervix at the royal wedding coverage just a couple of hours ago.
	He was on the left-hand side of the aisle, sitting between Lady Gabriella Windsor and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg.
	Cervix, you can't miss him.
	Hey, let's go to Lisa in Indianapolis.
	Lisa, it's great to have you with us on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Well, thank you, Mark.
	And I really enjoy listening to you substitute for Rush when he's not available.
	Well, he will be back here on Monday, and I'm very glad of that, too.
	I just wanted to say that I'm very, very jealous right now of your British citizenship.
	Because when this country goes to heck, because our elected representatives just refuse to pay attention to the fact that we are going broke, once we do, you're going to have a much easier time getting into New Zealand or Australia or some other business-friendly country that will still have a sustainable economy.
	So you're wishing, you're looking at the 1948 British Nationality Act and thinking, hey, why couldn't I get a piece of that action?
	You're right, Lisa.
	Well, for start, Lisa, let me just say this seriously.
	You know, as far as I'm concerned, I've come here.
	This is the last stop on the tour.
	There's nowhere else to go.
	And it's a tragedy if this country goes belly up.
	So I don't even want to encourage people about starting to look for bolt holes.
	You know, you can worry about bolt holes when the whole powder keg finally collapses.
	And by that time, Barack Obama will have fulfilled his first-term pledge to lower the oceans.
	So there will be uninhabited atolls emerging in the Pacific that you will not require extensive long-form immigration documentation to get to, Lisa.
	So you don't want to worry about that.
	But I would urge you, Lisa, not to start thinking it like that.
	This is the hill to die on, if it has to be that way.
	This country is worth defending.
	That's what the Tea Party movement told us.
	Everybody else around the planet, from Iceland, Bulgaria, Greece, France, everybody was just rampaging through the streets saying, why doesn't the government do more for us?
	In this country, this country is the only country where a movement arose saying we could do just fine if the government got the hell out of our pockets.
	And now they're not 50%.
	That's the tragedy.
	There's millions and millions of people.
	Is that if Barack Obama gets elected to a second term, because the people won't rally around a leader like Herman Kaine or somebody who, as you said earlier in the first hour, is a servant of the people, not a dictator of the people, then, and we end up with a Mitt Romney or a Newt Gingrich, which is a whole other avenue of the same old politician putting them back into government,
	I'm afraid that all may be lost if Obama gets a second term.
	Well, I would tell you, if you were, I mean, no, if you were just just to look seriously down the line a bit here, Lisa, I would say that if America does not correct course, that's to say, assuming that Obama were to be reelected to a second term and he would carry on as he's done before.
	and then 2016, who knows, it'll really be too late by 2016.
	I think you would be setting in place secession movements in large parts of the United States.
	Because there's absolutely no reason why my relatively sane state of New Hampshire should pick up the tab for the profligate states like California and New York and Illinois and Wisconsin and whatever.
	So we're going to be setting in motion the crackup of the United States.
	No centralized large society survives once its animating principle has gone.
	And if the American idea is dead, then there is no reason for these 50 states to stick together.
	There will be a lot fewer stars in the flag.
	So don't start worrying, Lisa, about having to head to New Zealand or Bermuda or wherever, some other well-run little island on the other side of the world.
	Stand here, take your stand here, you can win here.
	Yes, America's anchorman is away.
	He will return for another week of excellence in broadcasting, starting live at 12 noon Eastern, 9 a.m. Pacific, this Monday.
	Rush will return on Monday.
	I think he said he was taking time to reflect on certain developments, including Ben Bernanke's first press conference, I think the first press conference that anybody has ever held at the Federal Reserve.
	I'm not sure this is a good idea.
	The mystique of the Federal Reserve depends on you never actually getting a glimpse of who they are and what they do.
	And if they just become another body that just holds press conferences and learns to use slick sound bites, I don't think that's going to help them in the present situation.
	The Federal Reserve is a very troubled institution at the moment.
	It's so-called quantitative easing, which is basically a fascinating system by which the left hand of the United States government buys the debt issued by the right hand of the United States government.
	And if you're thinking, oh, hang on, that can't work, surely.
	Well, you might just have a point there.
	The quantitative easing hasn't worked, hasn't had any impact, hasn't done any good of the kind it was meant to do.
	And I think it's due to expire on June the 30th.
	And the world's markets have absolutely no idea what is going to come next on July the 1st, or even if there is a next, even if there is a next.
	So the role of the Federal Reserve and the policy of the United States as fewer and fewer people around the planet want to buy Treasury debt, the policy of the United States in issuing more and more American debt to be bought by the government of the United States.
	In other words, the right hand of the United States government selling debt to the left hand of the United States government.
	That is as crazy as it sounds, and it isn't getting us anywhere.
	So at this stage in the game, Ben Bernanke holding press conferences isn't going to help anything.
	Hey, let's go to Mel in Bayville, New York.
	Mel, you're live on Open Line Friday.
	Great to have you with us.
	Yeah, how are you doing, Mark Stein?
	Really nice to talk to you.
	I enjoy watching you on TV and listening to you on the radio.
	Hey, that's great.
	Where's Bayville, Mel, by the way, in the great state of New York?
	County up on the North Shore, right on Long Island Sound, directly across from Hartford, Connecticut.
	Oh, right.
	Okay.
	So you're on the north shore of Long Island there.
	Great to have you with us.
	What's on your mind?
	Okay.
	I heard something that Senator Lindsey Graham had said about two weeks ago, and it kind of like made my ears perk up because I wasn't aware of the fact that he was talking about.
	I think what it goes to, what he said, was one of the reasons why Obama wants to keep Guantanamo closed.
	And what Lindsey Graham said was this, and I wasn't aware of it.
	He said that if a terrorist is convicted at Guantanamo by a military tribunal and given the death penalty, then the President of the United States has to approve that death penalty.
	I think Obama never wants to be in the position of having to approve the death penalty for a Muslim or refusing to approve it and having to explain why.
	Well, that's an interesting theory.
	What goes against that is that at present, the United States military is killing more and more Muslims, including innocent Muslim villagers in the Afghan-Pakistani borderlands by unmanned drones virtually every night of the week.
	And Obama doesn't seem to have any problem with that, Mel.
	I mean, he's vastly increased the number of unmanned drones who are killing Afghan and Pakistani Muslims in that part of the world since he took office.
	I agree with you, but what I think is that it's so much more personal when he has to put his stamp of approval on killing one Muslim right then and there.
	Well, but let's look at it this way.
	What that shows is that he's not unwilling to kill Muslims.
	He's certainly happy to kill large numbers of people every night of the week over in the Pakistani tribal lands.
	So the trick then for him would be: can he execute someone from Gitmo without anybody making a big fuss about it?
	And the interesting thing about that is, if he did sign one of these death warrants for one of these guys at Guantanamo, do you think that the press would hold him to account for it?
	Do you think that Code Pink, do you think that all the people that Cindy Sheehan, all the people you heard from incessantly in the last years of the Bush administration, do you think they're going to get any FaceTime on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN to make their point on that?
	No, but thank God Fox has a big following and Fox will talk about it.
	And that kind of segues into something else.
	Could I mention something else, Mark?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Okay, AOL has recently taken a sinister turn to the left since it merged with the Huffington Post.
	Right.
	Prior to that, the comments that you see on the different articles had both sides of the political spectrum, but now the comments are like 95% liberal.
	And that worries me because it comes at a time when the mainstream media is finally beginning to lose some readership.
	And AOL, I think, will capture some of those former readers that the mainstream media is losing.
	I think AOL could be a very big threat to whoever's running against Obama in 2012.
	Well, you know, you have to, that's a good point, Mel.
	And there are no, nothing stands still.
	And people who say, oh, the great thing about the internet and everything is that it's opened up all these alternative voices for different views.
	That's fine.
	But it isn't going to be like that forever.
	And people know this around the world, that if you look at how YouTube reacts to when Muslim groups, for example, demand certain things be taken down, if you look at Google's search engine priorities, it's not difficult to see that simply the fact of this new media means you're suddenly on an even playing field.
	It requires eternal vigilance.
	You mentioned that the Huffington Post are now part of AOL.
	That was founded by Ariana Huffington.
	The left took a long time to get into the internet and into the whole bloggersphere thing.
	For the first few years, it was the province of the right because the right were motivated, because the left had national public radio and the left had the big TV networks and the left had the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post.
	So what did they need these crazy blogs for?
	And then when they saw that the blogs were influential, then you got your Daily Costs moving in and your Huffington Post moving in and you got a left-wing and you got a left-wing bloggersphere.
	Nothing stands still.
	Nothing stands still.
	And the difference now, though, is that at least there's a fight about it.
	At least, if you go back to a ton of stuff that happened in the 90s, when there was just rush, in those days, there was rush, and there were one or two other talk shows.
	The internet hadn't really taken off.
	Fox News had only just begun.
	There was just rush.
	And the old school guys believed they could still control the narrative.
	And they thought they could still control the narrative.
	As late as 2004, Dan Rather telling us that he didn't care that that particular typeface didn't exist at the time he claimed those George W. Bush National Guard memos dated from.
	Dan Rather thought he could still control the narrative as late as 2004.
	And that's what it's all about.
	And that's what it is with Obama.
	You should always ask yourself why it is that the media are determining their priorities the way they do.
	When they decided they weren't going to tell you anything about Obama, as I said yesterday, they were going to act as the court eunuchs, the palace guard, protecting Obama, and they sent everyone instead to Wazilla, Alaska, because they knew the moment she made that electrifying speech that they were going to get, that she was a threat to them, and they needed to take her down immediately.
	And they succeeded brutally in diminishing the impact of Sarah Palin and defining Sarah Palin for all those mushy, centrist, independent, swing voters that Rush is always rightfully mocking because they're not paying attention to everything.
	And so they tend to take their cues from that overall narrative.
	Now, Barack Obama has beggared those independents.
	He's wiped out their 401ks and all the rest of it.
	They're hurting.
	They're beginning to understand that they can't afford the virtue, the little frisson of virtue that comes from voting for Barack Obama and feeling good about yourself because you've voted for all the Hopi-Changey stuff because they realize that the Hopi change has actually impoverished them, impoverishing them, condemning them to a broke old age.
	They figured that out, the mushy, centrist, squishy independents who drive you nuts when it's two days before the election and there's a focus group of them on CNN and Anderson Cooper's interviewing them and the woman says, well, I don't really feel he ever addressed my concerns.
	So what?
	It's a national election for 300 million people.
	Figure out what the concerns facing the nation are and then figure out where you stand on that instead of the poor guy having to construct a policy for you, Gladys Squoggins of 27C Elm Street.
	It's pathetic to watch that.
	But that's the way those squishy, centrist, independent, com sit, com sir, I like to swing both ways, centrist, moderate, independent people vote.
	And right now they're hurting in their pocketbook and they realize the hopy-changey thing is a crock.
	Come November next year, who's to say the media won't have done their usual job establishing a narrative that makes the Republican guy look like the crazy guy and the thing for sensible, centrist, moderate, prudent people to do is to vote for the guy who's driving the United States of America off a cliff.
	That's a given.
	That's a given.
	It doesn't matter whether it's the New York Times, ABC, or now AOL.
	You just have to resist that and you have to open up more and more of these new forums and make sure that the narrative is not being set by those closed groups.
	1-800-282-2882.
	Hey, Mark Steinen for Rush, 1-800-282-2882, Open Line Friday, whatever you want to talk about.
	Let's go to Patrick in San Jose.
	Patrick, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Hello, Mark.
	Regarding Obama's eligibility as a natural-born citizen, in 2008, the Senate passed a resolution stating that John McCain was eligible to be President of the United States because he was a natural-born citizen.
	In their statements, they referenced a legal analysis that was applied by none other than Lawrence Tribe and Theodore Olson, who was the former Solicitor General under Bush.
	In their legal analysis, they referenced an act by the First Congress, which is dated March 26, 1790, where the first Congress defines what is a natural born citizen.
	That appears in Chapter 3 of that Act.
	And that Act reads, And the children of such persons so naturalized, this is of people who have been naturalized citizens, dwelling in the United States, being under the age of 21 years at the time of naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
	It continues, here's the key point.
	And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
	There is the historical definition enacted by the first Congress stating what is a natural born citizen.
	Now, clearly there is a distinction between Article 2, Section 1, which outlines the eligibility for the president, and one of those requirements is natural-born citizen.
	For senator and congressmen, they only need be citizens.
	Right.
	No, no, no, no.
	Historical definition.
	Just a minute, Patrick.
	So what's the objection then to Obama?
	Because he wasn't born overseas.
	According to this birth certificate now, he was born in this hospital in Hawaii.
	Why then is he not a natural-born citizen?
	Because he was not born to parents who were citizens.
	Everywhere in the Act of 1790, everywhere in the legal opinion by Lawrence Tribe and Theodore Olson, everywhere in the Senate resolution, it always says born of parents who were U.S. citizens.
	The issue of whether or not one could be a natural born citizen if they're derived of only one U.S. citizen is never specifically addressed, which is why it should be adjudicated.
	Well, what do you make of this?
	United States versus Wong Kim Ark, 1898 Supreme Court decision that says that the definition of natural born comes from the law of England for the previous three centuries and then applying in the American colonies at the time of independence, and indeed still applying within Her Majesty's realms to this day.
	That natural born was a phrase meaning that every child born in England or anywhere else of His Majesty's realms to alien parents was a natural born subject of the king unless he happened to be the child of an ambassador or some other diplomat.
	Yes, that's a citation from 1898.
	And that does leverage British common law, as you're referring to, and that's referring to British subjects, which subject was then replaced with citizen.
	So that is a question, and that is exactly part and parcel of why it should be adjudicated, especially when someone like Alan Keyes, who was on the ballot in California for president, certainly has standing if no one else does.
	But do you just just just stop here for a minute?
	If you look at the Supreme Court's rulings on this in the 19th century, when it did come up a couple of times, and you look at where we are now, what are the chances of getting five Supreme Court justices to accept the definition you've given of natural-born citizen, which is to say that a man can be born to an American mother in an American state, but because his father was a British subject born in Kenya, he's not a natural-born citizen?
	Well, I hate to give a percentage chance on what the chances are of the justices actually following the Constitution.
	They don't do it all the time.
	They subvert the Constitution all the time, right?
	So it should be addressed not only by the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court, there should be congressional hearings on the matter.
	And if it is determined by the representatives, not the leaders, the representatives of the citizens of the United States that he doesn't meet the criteria, then he should be impeached.
	I mean, this is so clear.
	It's unbelievable that we can't.
	But it isn't clear because the definition you've given, the definition you've given is not the definition from that Supreme Court decision in the Juan Kimark case in 1898.
	It is not the definition of natural born as it was understood at the time of American independence, 1776.
	Now, you were talking there about 1790, the first Congress.
	They attached great significance to 14 years residency in the United States.
	We've got to go.
	We've got to take an EIB Profit Center.
	We'll be back in a moment.
	Obenline Friday, 1-800-282-2882.
	Mark Stein Infra Rush.
	We will explore a little more of that natural born stuff.
	You need an unnatural-born, undocumented guy like me to get into it.
	And we will do that.
	We'll also talk about the debt ceiling and much more right ahead on the Russlimbossia.

▲