Dr. Conspiracy to appear on Plains Radio

Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy

As I understand it, I will be appearing on Plains Radio this Wednesday at 7:35-8:00 PM (EDT) on the “Liberty Poll” show with Ken Dunbar.

The topic: Defining Natural Born Citizen.

Join me at http://www.plainsradio.com for what will either be an interesting discussion, or a complete waste of time.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Dr. C. Comments and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Dr. Conspiracy to appear on Plains Radio

  1. Kevin Bellas says:

    I am at a lost for words on this one Doc. Ken Dunbar while he professes that the COLB is null since in his opinion you need two citizens to be natural born.

    I will tune in for this event.

    Good Luck!!!!

    I wonder if this is a sign that the echo chamber is cracking?

  2. notheydidn't says:

    I will be listening and supporting you.
    Dunbar has this self created quiz he gives his guests on what a natural born citizen is. Of course you will fail so brace yourself. You are up on all that Vattell info (I am so sick of Vattell) and you use the brain God gave you so you should be fine.

  3. Heavy says:

    CAREFUL with them thar birfers, Doc! You might just end up as sound bite chop suey.

    Actually, I look forward to hearing you. I’d like to see if you speak as well as you write. Can you do it without a teleprompter? Your messiah can’t!

  4. Mary Brown says:

    Oh, my. I find them quite interesting. I have been labeled an obot and banned (I am not computer savy but I think that is the term). As a practicing Christian I tried using Biblical reference feeling that might get them to think. It did not. But I give you credit for trying. I will try to listen. Good luck.

  5. meson says:

    I’ll be tuned in for sure but I’m betting it won’t take ‘ol Ed more than 10 minutes to cut you off….good luck though.

  6. Do you have a link to his list of questions? [This sounds familiar.]

    I see this thing:


  7. Cee Cee says:

    Oh Doc, you’re going into enemy territory. I will pray for your safe return into sanity. hehheheheheh

    I feel you will do well and stump them on a lot of things.

    Be strong. lol

  8. In such an instance, I think I will find a YouTube clip of the famous Jack Nicholson line “you can’t handle the truth” and declare victory in a new major article here.

  9. Heavy says:

    I’m looking forward to it. I can use some more good fiction.

  10. TRUTH says:

    This will be like watching Michigan play Florida in football. I like one but don’t agree with their game plan completely. The other is in my league but because their embarrassing idiots(P.R.) I want them to lose.

    Can it be a tie?

  11. notheydidn't says:

    Yes, that is it. I found this old thread on Plains Radio.

    Ken Dunbar
    Dec 18, 2008 – 8:53PM Quote Reply the nbc triangle

    Hello, all on my show “The Liberty Pole” of December 17, 2008.. I explained the definiton for “natural born citizen as a triangle.

    One side is “US father”
    a second is” US mother”
    third is “born in the US”

    A person needs all three to be a natural born citizen.
    If you dont have one side, you don’t have a triangle!

    And thanks to member glen, of my “The Liberty Pole” site, for drawing up the triangle

    The direct link to that post is below. It has the three historical quotations of that one definition, with links to where they are online; and thn the link to mr. Obama’s ssite, where he admits he wwas British by descent under his father.

    Copy that info at “The Liberty Pole”. ANY of the info and share it by paper or by email!

    State: Arkansas

  12. Thanks, notheydidn’t,

    That’s an interesting page and I think it would be a good basis for this evening’s discussion.

  13. Heavy says:

    Doc, you’re in over your head. You may rule the roost here, but these guys will eat you alive. I hope they let you take calls. THAT will be some funny stuff!

  14. meson says:

    Counting down…..10 minutes tops Doc!

  15. meson says:

    Well you made it past the 10 minute mark doc, so far so good, wish you had an hour or more though.

  16. meson says:

    WooHoo Dunbar must be reading the comments here….a whole hour, great doc! 🙂

  17. Wow. The audio is particularly bad.

    He should try converting to Speex.

    At any rate, you seem to be winning rather handily right now, Dr. C.

  18. meson says:

    hmmm the audio is nice and clear here, what browser are you using? I use Firefox as a rule but I’m listening to the show with IE.

  19. I’m getting a 24kbps MP3 stream. This is the URL I’m using:


    (though it’s not really the stream. Dunbar sounds like he’s talking into a coffee can)

  20. meson says:

    Yeah that’s the url I’m using as well, Dunbar always sounds like that but Doc sounds clear.

  21. Well, maybe Dunbar just needs a better microphone.

    I think a better stream might make the clipping less obnoxious.

  22. Nooooo!

    Another 15 minutes? I had things to do tonight!

  23. meson says:

    Sheesh Doc might convert Dunbar to a obot before the night is over!

  24. Notheydidn't says:

    You are doing great. You took 25 minutes and turned it into 1 hour and 30 minutes. He will keep you the whole last half hour I bet.

  25. Looks that way. 10 minutes to go.

  26. meson says:

    Well done Doc :0

  27. Well, I think you did great, champ.

    Dunbar seemed to come off as somewhat incoherent in his arguments, but I think it was very big of him to let you come on and not really try to interrupt or do the sort of techniques that you see on cable TV interviews. I’d actually like to see Dunbar doing mainstream interviews, since he seems to be able to allow people to express opposing opinions well.

    Now, off to dinner.

  28. Your wish is granted.

  29. I could barely hear Ken Dunbar — sounded like somebody was playing the radio in the background rather than him being on the phone.

  30. I was well treated and have no complaints.

    I didn’t prepare much for the call (and I never anticipated it running so long), but I really wanted to demonstrate, and I think I did, that the denial of natural born citizenship to the native-born children of aliens was essentially an emotional response.

    If I had had more time, I would like to have worked in something about the Chinese Exclusion Act. I need to look up that thing about the native born citizen to military families act and see what the hook was.

  31. hablo says:

    Wow. Did he really end his summary with “How can british law govern the birth status of an American natural born citizen?”
    Sounds like you might have turned Mr. Dunbar to our side, Doctor C. Congratulations.

    BTW, I listened to the interview up until Obama’s press conference. You did excellently.

    Finally, was I the only person that caught all the militia and “it’s time for action” talk in the chat? I got out of there quickly.

  32. Thanks for the tip. When he says:

    “How can british law govern the birth status of an American natural born citizen?”

    He suggests that because british law controls, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

    I suggest that British law has no say in who can be President of the United States.

    I find it remarkable that the same statement can have two such opposite readings.

  33. During my radio appearance, a question was raised about the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act introduced in the Senate (not passed).

    Ken Dunbar posed the question: why was such an act necessary for children of US Citizens born overseas if such children were already natural born citizens?

    My reply was that thought something fishy was in the act, and the support of military families was just a lure.

    I was mistaken. The proposed Act is quite simple and straightforward.

    At the outset when asked my definition of a natural born citizen, I said that the children of Americans born overseas was an uncertain situation. That’s probably why the Act was proposed.

  34. Heavy says:

    Doc, I’m confused. In his summary, he states that you would BOTH like to see th long form BC. Is that true?

  35. Yes. I said that I would like to the see the long form and frame a copy and hang it my wall. If “The Long Form” came to a theater near me, I’d buy a ticket and some popcorn and watch the show.

    I don’t need to see it and I don’t demand to see it, and I am not calling for its release and I am not advising its release, and I have full confidence that it will corroborate the COLB already presented, but I would surely like to see it. I could say “I told you so” to a lot of people both by what it proves, and (I predict) by the fact that it will settle nothing in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists.

    I would also like to see the Constitution of the United States but I know, on good authority, what it says. Perhaps one day I will see both of them.

  36. Heavy says:

    Cheers, doc. Hopefully, that day will come soon. I would LOVE for you to be able to tell me “I told you so”!

    Until then, you keep trying to justify this ILLEGAL administration.

    Your analogy stinks, by the way. The Constitution is a very old document they is and has been available for examination. It is also very well researched. NO comparison!

  37. Doc, you’ve never seen the Constitution?

    I’ll admit, it’s not particularly exciting, but it is available for public viewing at the National Archives, and it’s worth seeing if you ever go to DC.

  38. DH says:

    Meanwhile Orly continues to try and get people shot:

    “While I am trying to reach resolution in legal ways and appeal to the law enforcement, congress and judiciary, time might be coming for citizens, for “we the people” to seek justice and take matters in their own hands. If the Attorney Generals and district attorneys, and Federal Atorneys are not willing to prosecute Obama based on dossiers showing evidence of document forgery, perjury, massive fraud and othe crimes, based on indictments of the Citizen Grand Juries, then maybe it is time for citizen trials, maybe it is time for the citizen militias to effectuate the verdicts of those trials…”


  39. Wednesdays are typically a low-volume day for visitors at Obama Conspiracy Theories, but this Wednesday, the number of pages served was up about 20% over an average one. It was still far below the peak day of the month (April 12) when we served over 7,000 pages.

    It’s reasonable to say that we had a bump from my appearance on Plains Radio.

    PS. If ANYBODY recorded this, let me know. I really want a copy.

  40. Heavy says:

    I’m not an Orly fan, but she has a point. It may come to that.

  41. Mary Brown says:

    It is amazing to me that people like Heavy talk about defending the Constitution and then talk about treason.

  42. Notheydidn't says:


    Would you consider asking Dunbar to ask Ed for a copy?

  43. Will do.

  44. meson says:

    I believe I heard Ed say a few days ago that he will no longer be archiving the shows, says he doesn’t have time.

  45. JTB says:

    I have just listened to a re-run of the 29th April 2009 ‘Liberty Pole’ broadcast on Plains Radio, featuring ‘Doctor Conspiracy’. The fundamental argument put forward by ‘Dr Conspiracy’, at the end of the broadcast, was that the framers of the Constitution were schooled in British law and therefore would not have wanted ‘natural law’, as espoused by people such as Vatel, to interfere with American law. I think that, generally, that is a correct analysis. But guess what. In one crucial matter, the framers of the Constitution DID consider that ‘natural law’ was important to the safety and security of the ‘United States of America and that is why they specifically incorporated the term ‘natural born citizen’ into the Constitution (in Section II, Article I, Clause 5), – for the specific purpose of ensuring that the Commander-in-Chief of American armed forces had indisputable loyalty to the United States. Indeed this was so important to the framers of The Constitution, that they made it a REQUIREMENT that anyone born after 1787 MUST be a ‘natural born citizen’ of the USA in order to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. They weren’t just making provisions for the particular circumstances of their own time, they were setting this principle in Constitutional stone to protect the integrity of the United States for all time.

    This is a classic case of ‘the exception proving the rule’. The RULE is that ‘The Constitution’ is the supreme law of the USA. No other law, be it natural law or British statute law or common law or any other type of law can outweigh American Constitutional law. However the matter of the danger of an American President or Vice President having any allegiance to a foreign power was so important to the framers of ‘The Constitution’ that they SPECIFICALLY incorporated this single EXCEPTIONAL item of ‘natural law’ into ‘The Constitution’. By codifying the ‘natural born citizen’ clause into ‘The Constitution’, the framers converted this single aspect of ‘natural law’ into Constitutional law. They made it part of ‘The Constitution’, so it must be the supreme law of the USA. The fact that the framers lifted the ‘natural born citizen’ concept from the principles of ‘natural law’ is irrelevant. The indisputable fact is that the framers, in their wisdom, chose to include the ‘natural born citizen’ clause in ‘The Constitution’ and no-one has subsequently been able to remove it.

    What did the framers mean by the term ‘natural born citizen’? There was only one definition of ‘natural born citizen’, at the time of the framing of The Constitution of the United States – “BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS” (as in Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’). It would have been superfluous for the framers to expand on the term. Everyone knew what it meant.

    In the case of Mr Barack Obama II, the 1948 British Nationality Act, merely states the effect, in British law, of the FACT that Mr Barack Obama II is not a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States, but is instead, the son of a man, Barack Obama I, who was born in British East Africa, in the country now known as Kenya. It is ironic that despite the fact that Barack Obama II, was born as a British subject, under the 1948 Act, it is the Kenyan soil and culture of his natural Father that divides, demonstrably, his loyalties from the US (as well as the Indonesian soil and culture of his adoptive Father, Lolo Soetoro).

    Barack Obama II and his active and tacit supporters have thrown down the gauntlet to the American people. “We can ignore The Constitution of the United States, whenever it suits us”. The American people who defeated Nazi-ism and Communism must now pick up the gauntlet and face this challenge, which threatens to destroy The American Constitution – the bedrock of the greatest nation in the history of the world.

  46. Heavy says:

    Well said. He has already proven his loyalties lie elsewhere.

    The libs scream “The people have spoken”. This means NOTHING. There are provisions to change the Constitution. If you want to change it, have at it. “The will of the people” is to abide by the Constitution, not will it to be otherwise.

    Face it folks, your messiah is a pretender and justice WILL prevail!

  47. That’s what the web site says.

  48. Gordon says:

    What’s the basis of your argument, because you think so? No supporting evidence whatsoever, none.

  49. Gordon says:

    Who was the first POTUS who’s parents weren’t British, quick w/o Google?

  50. Gordon says:

    Who was the first President that had both parents born in this country?

  51. Heavy says:

    I don’t need evidence, Gordo. He DOES. He needs to prove he meets the three qualifications for the office.

    When you got your driver’s license, did you have to bring PROOF of who you are, your age and address or did they take your word for it? Your meeting the requirements had to be proven by YOU. Same applies here. He must prove he meets the stated requirements.

  52. Heavy says:

    Born after 1787?

  53. Gordon says:

    My point is all the Founders and the first seven Presidents all had one or both parents of British decent.

  54. Gordon says:

    The two requirements for POTUS are to be 35 yoa, and be a natural born citizen of this country. Having had his COLB posted and examined, those two requirements have been satisfied. The problem for you is that the COLB is insuffeceint. There is no legal requirement beyond what has been shown. If you check with the U.S Standards on COLB, and the U.S State Dept. you will find that the short form COLB is perfectly legal. I asked you before to check those sources. I’m sure if you did this still would not satisfy your requirement. But your requirement is not the law.

  55. JTB says:

    I note that no-one has been able to refute anything in my post above.

  56. Hi Joe, I somehow overlooked your comment the first time around. Thanks for calling attention to it again. I’ll comment on what you said by paragraph (my numbers refer to your paragraph).

    1. In this paragraph, you seem to be begging the question. You say that common law rules except in the special case of the qualifications to be president, but you don’t say why this is a special case, but just assume it. You use the language “indisputable loyalty” which may well reflect your own views, but this language is not from our founding fathers. The historical context was that there were rumors that some European royal would be imported to lead the country, and in particular rumors circulated about General von Steuben. But I don’t know of any evidence that the framers of the Constitution were infected with the kind of xenophobia that infects some folks today, nor that the framers concerns about involving America in European entanglements align with your personal viewpoint of American purity.

    2. Again, you are begging the question when you say “the exception proving the rule”, since you assert that there is an exception without making the case that one exists. You go on to provide us with your own viewpoint on what kind of a person you’d like to see as president (we have elections for you to express views like this). You say: “No other law, be it natural law or British statute law or common law or any other type of law can outweigh American Constitutional law.” While the statement is undoubtably true, you again beg the question that your interpretation is the right one. Indeed, this morning I published an article, Defining Natural Born Citizen. That article is a real argument based on American law, proving what “natural born citizen” means.

    3. So after asserting “no other law…can outweigh American Constitutional law”, you throw American Constitutional law into the nearest dust bin and race to Swiss philosophy for your definition latching onto the fleeting mention of the words “Les naturels” (in English “the natural”) not followed by the French equivalent of “born citizens” in de Vattel’s work “Le Droit des Gens. ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, appliques a la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains“. While a later translation into English after the Constitution was ratified, taking into account context, chose to render these words “natural born citizen”, it was the French original that might have been known to some of the more educated members of American colonial society. So asserting that the casually similar French phrase “the naturals” defines an English phrase “natural born citizen”, already in use in colonial law and meaning something different, and trying to argue that the language of the entire Constitution is based on common law EXCEPT the part you don’t like…well it isn’t much of an argument. I would also refer the reader to my article, De Vattel for Dummies (where you can learn both to spell it right, and to interpret it right).

    While you rightly say “There was only one definition of natural born citizen’, at the time of the framing of The Constitution of the United States”, it was not something from Swiss philosophy, but something from the common law in force at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and already appearing in the laws of the American colonies. Those born in the United States are its natural born citizens. Just because you like what de Vattel says doesn’t mean the founding fathers did.

    4. Just your opinion, not an argument. Obama was not adopted by Lolo Soetoro, by the way.

    5. The quotation that forms the basis of your comment is something you made up yourself.

  57. Expelliarmus says:

    JTB, the fact that we choose to ignore your senseless and meandering diatribes does not mean that we cannot refute them.

  58. Gordon says:

    Your assertion that it would have been superfulous for the Founders to have mentioned Vattels is ridiculous. You people want to be strict constructionist when it fits your purpose. But on such an important point of law you want to pull stuff out your arse. No one can assume any such thing, and as verbose as the Founders were a couple of sentences would have cleared this up quite nicely. What’s amazing is all the birthers have suddenly become great Constitutional lawyers and fail to realize that the political opponents of Obama vetted him harder than you can imagine and had at their disposal real legal experts who would have had no problem exploiting this angle if there were anything to it.

    You can’t insert something in, or extract something from the law if it was not there to begin with.

  59. TRUTH says:

    that deserves a big DUHHHH!!

  60. Heavy says:

    Yes, liberals are masters of stating the obvious. It makes them feel smart.

  61. I’d much rather be accused of stating the obvious, than be accused of denying it.

    [I thought that was a rather snappy comeback.]

  62. richCares says:

    “When you got your driver’s license, did you have to bring PROOF of who you are, …”

    strange thing for a Birther to say as Obama has a driver’s license!

  63. I’m trying to remember back to 1966 when I got my learner’s permit. I know I didn’t have a birth certificate, so I didn’t show them that. All I could have shown them was a Social Security card. Maybe dad showed them his license and vouched for me. I would not have had any form of identification when I got my Social Security either card except for my parents’ statement.

  64. Maybe he showed ’em his green card. 😉

  65. richCares says:

    Oregon, Californa, and Hawaii require Birth certificates (all 3 also can sign you up for voting “voters registration”, don’t know about other states but probably the same now. the old days are gone!

Leave a Reply

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.