Lt. Col. Lakin’s Journey – Living in Times that Try Men’s Souls

Lt. Col. Lakin’s Journey – Living in Times that Try Men’s Souls

I rarely watch the Bill O’Reilly show on Fox because I’m not a fan of Mr. O’Reilly’s interview style. However, I received an email saying that Megyn Kelly would be looking into the allegations of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin concerning Obama’s eligibility. Ms. Kelly’s involvement tweaked my curiosity. Because of the tremendous amount of courage and commitment to principle that’s embodied in Lt. Col. Lakin’s refusal to obey orders he believes to be ‘unlawful’, I tuned in last week to see if fairness and objectivity in reporting could possibly emerge out of the morass of misinformation currently dominating the mainstream media.

Being aware that Bill O’Reilly has been consistently (mis) representing the ‘natural born citizen’ issue as merely a ‘citizenship’ issue and portraying everyone involved as a misguided group of nutcases, so I didn’t harbor any expectations that he would experience an ‘ah hah’ moment. (Mr. O’Reilly relies on the existence of birth announcements placed in local newspapers to prove his case but fails to mention that the birth announcements were most likely placed by the state, not Obama’s family.) However, I did have hopes that Megyn Kelly, an attorney, would at least frame the issue correctly. Once again, my hopes were misplaced.

I realize O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly are not journalists – they’re commentators/entertainers. And, the ‘natural born citizen’ issue and those attempting to peer behind the curtain have been effectively and maliciously recast by mainstream media misreporting and omission as something meriting ridicule, it’s not surprising to watch entertainers like O’Relly and Beck join in the piling on with the media herd. It’s sort of like a case of school bullying. Sometimes - once something or someone is portrayed as being a certain way, those with knowledge that could slow or reverse the momentum of attack fail to stand up. For whatever reason - they want to belong to the click, aren’t willing to risk criticism, want to keep a low profile, or they want to be popular (or at least not unpopular), etc. They fail to stand up and injustice continues.

I expect this of kids but not of national media figures or news organizations. Even though FOX does lead in the race towards Fair and Balanced reporting among the mainstream media, they have consistently failed regarding the ‘natural born citizen’ issue. In for a penny - in for a pound, I suppose.

I mention Glenn Beck only because of late he’s hammering away on a quote from Gandhi.

"Use truth as your anvil and non-violence as your hammer. And anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with non-violence, REJECT IT."

In any event, O’Reilly and Ms. Kelly portrayed Lt. Col. Lakin’s refusal to obey Obama’s orders as a mere attempt to attract attention to the issue. Ms. Kelly gave no information or opinion about the ongoing controversies regarding the definition of the term ‘natural born citizen’.

This is the issue. The issue that the media (including FOX) have been intentionally ignoring and misreporting is the abundance of legal opinion indicating that in order to be a ‘natural born citizen’ both of your parents must also have been U.S. citizens at the time of your birth. Regardless of where Obama was born, he fails to meet this part of the test to be a ‘natural born citizen’.

“Use truth as your anvil…” Anyone studying the eligibility issue is fully aware of this truth. There are in fact various contentions as to what ‘natural born citizen’ means, why it was included in the United States Constitution and how it should be interpreted.

So O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly are suggesting that Lt. Col. Lakin, facing a dishonorable discharge, loss of benefits and prison time is merely attempting to garner attention? Please!

“…and non-violence as your hammer” This decorated military officer with 18 years of service is being required to risk all because others have failed to do their jobs. The media, state election officials, the Electoral College, Congress, the courts, the Chain of Command and Sen. McCain have all failed to meet their responsibilities. It’s now suggested that maybe they were all waiting on each other.

How about Ms. Kelly at least entertaining the notion that Lt. Col. Lakin is living up to the Oath he took? How about at least understanding that there are in fact those among us who take such Oaths seriously? How about the possibility of losing one’s life, risking loss of limb, taking another’s life, subjecting oneself to charges of being a war criminal etc. vis-à-vis ‘unlawful orders’ originating at the very top of the Chain of Command? This seems more likely to be the motivation for Lt. Col. Lakin’s non-violent actions. Attempting to garner attention? Please!

“…anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with non-violence, REJECT IT.” Most reasonable people looking at the facts presented thus far and possible likely motivations cannot reject Lt. Col. Lakin’s actions without more information.

Why didn’t Ms. Kelly and Mr. O’Reilly point out how easily Obama could have resolved this issue for many that is undermining military cohesion and discipline? He could have long ago presented his long form birth certificate, college records, and etc. to establish conclusively that he was born in Hawaii and does not have dual citizenship. (But by Obama’s own admission his father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth.) Well, maybe he can’t.

“Use truth as your anvil…” Isn’t this the truth the media should be focusing on? Why won’t Obama release his long form birth certificate, college records, bar application, passport information, etc., etc., etc.? Weighed against the interest of soldiers in theater risking life and limb following ‘orders’ that could be ‘unlawful’ - doesn’t Obama’s small privacy concern pale in comparison? Weighed against the possibility that a Lt. Col. with 18 years of service is risking his career and liberty - doesn’t Obama’s small privacy concern pale in comparison?

“…and non-violence as your hammer” Let’s see. Lt. Col. Lakin, CMD Kerchner, Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, Captian Connie Rhodes, Maj. Stefan Cook and many other members of the military have been questioning the eligibility of Obama to serve as Commander In Chief and jeapadizing their own military careers. Is it reasonable to believe that they would not take such drastice actions without real concern over Obama’s eligibility. How do these military lives and careers weigh in the balance when compared to merely releasing documents that every other Presidential candidate has voluntarily released?

“These are the times that try men’s souls.” Thomas Paine

“…anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with non-violence, REJECT IT.” Without more, how could any reasonable person weighing the ‘known’ facts ‘reject’ the allegations and concerns Lt. Col. Lakin is raising?

“Use truth as your anvil…” Most estimates that I have seen indicate that Obama has spent around 1.7 million dollars trying to keep documents normally provided to the public by Presidential candidates hidden. Isn’t it true that under normal circumstances every media outlet in America would be turning over every stone to find out what Obama is hiding? Isn’t that one of the most important stories here?

“…and non-violence as your hammer” Let’s see. Philip Berg (Democrat), Steve Pidgeon, Leo C. Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Dr. Orly Taitz, and many other attorneys have taken up this issue knowing the ridicule they would face and the jeapardy they placed their careers in. Does anyone really believe that Obama would spend so much money hiding documents normally provided to the public without something major to hide? Would you?

“…anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with non-violence, REJECT IT.” Without more, how could any reasonable person weighing the ‘known’ facts ‘reject’ the allegations of Lt. Col. Lakin?

“Use truth as your anvil…” The truth is that Obama has admitted that he acquired British Citizenship through his Kenyan father. Some suggest that Obama continues to hold British citizenship. Obama’s grandmother said Obama was born in Kenya, Michelle Obama referred to Kenya as Obama’s home country, several Kenyan representatives have indicated Obama was born in Kenya. Several news organizations have reported prior to the election that Obama was born in Kenya, including NPR. There are also questions about a possible Indonesian citizenship arising out of Obama’s adoption.

“…and non-violence as your hammer” No one has stormed the White House to forcibly remove Obama. Everyone is attempting in good faith to go though the proper channels. Many court cases have been filed and not one has been addressed on the merits by the court. Judges have been finding every legal loophole possible to avoid discovery and making a determination about Obama’s possible lack of status as a ‘natural born citizen’.

The media would have you believe that the courts have rejected the allegations that Obama is not eligible to serve. That is simply not true. The courts are evading the issue.

Now members of our military such as Lt. Col. Lakin are being called upon to stand as the last line of defense for the Constitution. He has answered the call. Hopefully, many others will add their voices to Lt. Col. Lakin’s and make a noise so loud that it will rock the foundation of the military itself and have the Joint Chiefs begging for resolution.

Thus far, the Joint Chiefs of Staff appear to be quietly acquiescing to what is possibly the greatest case of fraud in American history. Actually, they’re acting like school kids.

It’s sort of like a case of school bullying. Sometimes - once something or someone is portrayed as being a certain way, those with knowledge that could slow or reverse the momentum of attack fail to stand up. For whatever reason - they want to belong to the click, aren’t willing to risk criticism, want to keep a low profile, or they want to be popular (or at least not unpopular), etc. They fail to stand up and injustice continues.

When those who are supposed to lead shirk their responsibilities, those who follow, those who have based their lives upon principles are left with few options other than to walk bravely into the batons of the oppressors as Gandhi and his followers. I’m sure Lt. Col. Lakin is aware of the obstacles and challenges that await him. With 18 years of exemplary service behind him, how can he not?

“…anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with non-violence, REJECT IT.” In light of the above statements and suggestions of a Kenyan birth, what do you think? Can anyone really reject out of hand Lt. Col. Lakin’s assertions and doubts?

Just a reminder, even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he still fails to meet the test for being a ‘natural born citizen’ because of the citizenship of his father. This is why Obama does not want the issue to be addressed on the merits. It’s why courts are falling over themselves to avoid addressing this political hot potato. This is why he continues to let military men and women sacrifice their careers and why Obama allows doubts to persist throughout the ranks. He knows he might not meet the test for being a ‘natural born citizen’.

“Use truth as your anvil…” Ms. Kelly seemed to want to leave viewers with the impression that Lt. Col. Lakin could not possibly present a valid defense in a court martial for refusing to obey orders of a superior officer. Admittedly it is a hard row to hoe but Lt. Col. Lakin does in fact have defenses. One defense is that given the known facts, every ‘reasonable serviceman’ or woman in the military could in fact have reasonable doubts about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as President and Commander In Chief.

Using the same logic present in Rule 916 (d).

“Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.”

According to The Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) (2008 Edition), Lt. Col. Lakin will have the ability to use civilian defense counsel as long as it is at no expense to the military. Therefore, I urge people to support Lt. Col. Lakin’s legal defense fund.

Even though Lt. Col. Lakin’s chances of success at his court martial are not great. It is vitally important for Lt. Col. Lakin to have a highly experienced civilian attorney well versed Constitutional law, the UCMJ, and preserving rights on appeal. Preserving Lt. Col. Lakin’s appellate rights is critical, takes experience and is not inexpensive.

The main reasons I harbor doubts about victory at a possible court martial come from the past history of the eligibility issue in civilian courts and the Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) (2008 Edition) itself:

1. ”An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.”
2. ”The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by a military judge.”
3. “A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”

Therefore, no one should expect Lt. Col. Lakin at his own court martial to be able to force Obama to produce documents proving that he is a ‘natural born citizen’.

However, Lt. Col. Lakin may be able to introduce the newspaper articles indicating an Obama birth in Kenya and the citizenship of his father through an exception to the hearsay rule. (Or possibly in mitigation – see Rule 1001.)

Lt. Col. Lakin may also be able to introduce or have judicial notice taken of the 1961 Hawaii statutes and regulations concerning the evidentiary value the ‘birth certificate’ and ‘birth announcements’ that are currently in the public domain.

And, Lt. Col. Lakin should be able to introduce legal argument supporting the proposition that in order to be a ‘natural born citizen’ Obama must have been born in America to 2 parents who were both citizens at the time of his birth. “A general order…is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution.”

In any event, attempts to introduce such evidence should be made at every opportunity - taking care to properly preserve the denial/issue for appeal.

Another provision in the R.C.M that got my interest states: ”The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.”

My first thoughts went to the oath Lt. Col. Lakin swore to uphold, due process, and rights flowing from the 5^th Amendment.

Given the new global environment, what’s to stop a country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, N. Korea, or Iran etc. from claiming that any and all deaths at the hands of U.S. Service personnel are war crimes because they should have known that they were following ‘unlawful orders’?

Consider the following statement contained in a Congressional Research Service report for Congress:

…Although not immune from prosecution, U.S. personnel who could be charged with violating the War Crimes Act would have several possible defenses to criminal liability, so long as their activities were conducted with the authorization of the Administration and under the reasonable (though mistaken) belief that their actions were lawful…

Are those engaged in drone attacks in Pakistan in jeopardy? Will there come a point when there is so much information is in the public domain calling into question Obama’s eligibility that it would make it unreasonable to believe that Obama Administration’s authorizations are lawful?

I am not an expert in Military Law but for purposes of this article I wanted to make a couple of quick points related to the impression Ms. Kelly gave on the O’Rielly show. In any event, Lt. Col. Lakin’s court martial will require a skilled attorney, able to try the case in the court of public opinion as well and to cause the Military Times to report on it daily.

“…and non-violence as your hammer” Lt. Col. Lakin has apparently done everything he could through proper channels to have the military address this issue to no avail. Lt. Col. Lakin, being left with no recourse other than to abandon his Oath to protect and defend the Constitution, has knowingly and willingly placed himself in jeopardy of court martial.

“…anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with non-violence, REJECT IT.”

I have seen nothing that suggests that Lt. Col. Lakin’s concerns should be rejected. Have you?

However, it is entirely possible that Lt. Col. Lakin will be required to pay a high price for his fidelity to his Oath. He may be required to join the ranks of Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and others who have been willing wait in jail while truth finds its way to the surface.

If sufficient numbers of military personal voice their support for Lt. Col. Lakin, there will come a point when the Joints Chiefs of Staff will be knocking on the door of the White House demanding that the deception and lack of transparency end for the sake of the military and its cohesion as a fighting force.

As I write this article, I have just learned that Supreme Court Justice Thomas has admitted that the nation’s highest court is “evading” the eligibility issue. What? It seems everyone involved is/was waiting for someone else to take the lead!

I think America needs a lot more anvils of truth being hammered with many, many more hammers of non-violence! Avoidance is not truth. Omission is not truth.

Honor is the one thing that makes our military special and right now it is in jeopardy from the top down through the Chain of Command. Like truth, honor in all matters must be maintained.

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Albert Einstein

Are the Joint Chiefs really willing to live with such a result because of someone who has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of commitment to truth? Need I remind they of the back room deals to get health care passed, the unjust firing of Inspector General Walpin, the unjust treatment of Larry Sinclair, Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc., etc., etc.

If the Joint Chiefs are not going to expect members of the military to live up to their oaths, the oath should be changed to something more appropriate.

How about:

I, _______, do solemnly swear to protect ME and I will try to defend the Constitution as long as it doesn’t adversely impact the aforementioned ‘ME’.

You have my respect and support Lt. Col. Lakin.

Will State Legislators Allow the Life Support Plug on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to be Pulled?

The BOPAC Report:

Will State Legislators Allow the Life Support Plug on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to be Pulled?

First the good news, Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution is still alive. The bad news is that she is on life support. There is a cure but the political side effects may be so severe that politicians lacking sufficient strength of character and commitment might allow the plug to be pulled unless they receive sufficient support and encouragement from their constituents.

Candidates from both Parties stand in the hospital wings, watching with intense interest. Coffin builders for fallen Constitutional protections have their measuring tapes out. Those who hold the view that the Constitution is an obstacle to their ‘enlightened’ purposes (the media and far left Democrats) are working as hard as they can to rewrite history, shape public opinion, and plan their bounty. Politicians on the national stage, with the exception of the brave few, are trying to distance themselves from Article II, Section 1 even though she is part of a Constitution that has nurtured and given direction to America throughout its history. These politicians cry out - Why can’t this be easier or least done in secret?

Advocates from all parts of America have tried their best to plea the case for the life and continuing benefits that Article II, Section 1 bestows upon America, her people and her military. Advocates like Philip Berg, Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon and others have put their reputations, fortunes, and personal safety on the line to uphold the oaths they took when they joined their profession. Thank you for your continuing efforts Advocates. Even though it may not be politically correct, there are many of We The People praying for you.

Thus far every plea has fallen on the deaf ears of brethren on the bench - who of course have also pledged protection and defense for the incredible document of which Article II, Section 1 is a part. We The People could see them sitting stately in their robes trying to consider every possible consequence that might flow from their decision – political, legal, moral, and yes personal. Then one by one they punted, as any survival-trained politician would do.

We could almost hear each whisper: Shall I speak and honor the words ‘natural born citizen’ knowing they require of those seeking America’s highest Office and Command of her military to have no other allegiance?

With Judge Carter, we could almost see him turn the voice in his head, his voice, off. We all had such high hopes for Carter given that he verbalized his intent of getting to the bottom of it all, and he was an ex-Marine. He had recognized how big an issue it was. What words might have persuaded him?

Were these Judges, being creatures of both politics and the law, simply overwhelmed by their own political and/or personal interests? The written language of Article II, Section 1 was clear enough, her history was clear enough, and the why of Article II, Section 1 was easily understandable and continues to this day. But the common thread, every case before the bench involved the first African-American who was to be elected to the Office of the Presidency; and as such, each case carried so many people’s hopes, dreams and expectations. Each case was a political minefield.

Surely, they must have struggled with the decision? Could it be that some of those standing vigil, wringing their hands in anticipation, as Article II, Section 1 clings to her intended life - approached the magistrates at some point with dire warnings of rioting in the streets, solace that it’s not that big a deal, that Obama’s eligible but a deep dark family secret would have be revealed should proof be required, or maybe something else. Who knows in national politics?

Nevertheless, how could any Judge put aside the maxim of legal training?

‘Politiae legibus non leges politiis adaptandae’ – Politics are to be adapted to the laws, and not the laws to politics.

Even though cases remain that can provide healing to Article II, Section 1 and restore the integrity of America’s justice system, it looks more and more like State legislatures hold the only power of resurrection vis-à-vis laws that will require candidates for the Presidency to provide documentation establishing they are ‘natural born citizens’.

Unless something extraordinary occurs, the next Presidential election will not have the watchful gaze of Article II, Section 1 enhancing America’s security.

Try to imagine the run up to 2012.

Political Parties get their eyes fixed on the Presidency and begin the process of selecting the candidate with the biggest coat tails to carry their hopes and aspirations, will anyone worry about complying with the ghostly remains of an Article II, Section 1 that has been effectively drawn and quartered by Judges and Politicians wilting before the possibility of political/societal consequences should they do their duties?

Will any Secretary of State or Elections Official now dare to raise their voice without a strong statutory mandate requiring their scrutiny?

It’s doubtful.

Thankfully, there are those fighting for the protections that Article II, Section 1 provides and guarding her life support plug. The call for State Legislator Specialists is going out.

States needn’t wait on the outcomes of the current eligibility lawsuits of Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, or Philip Berg. The prospects for their success are fairly close to nil – not because their cases lack merit, but because their judges lack political courage. Make note that every court thus far has demonstrated its incredible reluctance to face the virus attacking Article II, Section 1. Of the scores of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, not one judge has allowed discovery that could determine the factual reality threatening Article II, Section 1.

Can anyone imagine a future plaintiff willing to go through the expense and the likelihood of facing the gauntlet of abusive magistrates who’d thought they’d made it abundantly clear that they do not want to deal with the issue of compromised allegiances to the United States? Talk about having a chilling effect on protecting Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution!

Don’t lose faith, miracles do happen. Several legislators in different parts of the country are answering the call for specialized treatment.

For example in Arizona:

…HB 2441: A large group of Republican lawmakers have signed on in support of HB 2441, which would require presidential candidates to provide copies of their birth certificates to prove they are eligible to become president and are not foreign-born secret Muslims. If the Arizona secretary of state determines the documents don't measure up, the candidate cannot be on the ballot in Arizona. HB 2441 is awaiting a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee….

Right now, mid-February, the treatment so desperately needed is awaiting a hearing in an Arizona House Judiciary Committee. Hopefully, the House Judiciary Committee is not set up like one of the ‘death panels’ envisioned in Obama’s healthcare takeover.

The legislation the Arizona team of specialists is trying to enact is clear, to the point and should be moved forward because time is short. I applaud them loudly.

However, it looks as though they are sending a generic version of the life saving medicine. It may do the trick but it seems to rely on the Arizona Secretary of State’s knowledge of the history and meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’. Just as many of America’s young are not being taught the price of freedom that has been paid throughout our history, many of our elected officials may not recognize that a problem of compromised allegiance exists with a particular candidate.

…Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States….

Being just one member of We The People who deeply values Article II, Section 1 and the rest of the family of Constitutional provisions - I’m not a legislative specialist; but wouldn’t it be better if you define the term ‘natural born citizen’.

Why not require sufficient proof that would meet a definition that the Founders would have understood?

A person is a ‘natural born citizen’, if he or she were born a U.S. citizen to parents who were both U.S. citizens by ‘birth or naturalization’ at the time of his or her birth.

Such a definition would only require one U. S. birth certificate indicating birth on American soil for the candidate and a U.S. birth certificate indicating birth on American soil or certification of U.S. Naturalization reflecting U.S. citizenship before the candidate’s birth for each of the candidate’s parents. Simple, it takes three.

If the State law were ever challenged, then maybe, just maybe a federal court would have to define ‘natural born citizen’.

Note: Even though I have approached this subject using a bit of humor, it is in fact very serious. (Follow the links to find more information about the eligibility issue.) If you would like to help protect the Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, call or email your Representatives, state and national. I plan on emailing this article to every state legislator in Arizona and Louisiana very soon. I’m choosing Louisiana because their Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has the same problem with Presidential eligibility that Barack Obama has.

Thank you!

Zach Jones

Obama is Eligible to Serve and ‘Birthers’ are Vindicated? The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

Obama is Eligible to Serve and ‘Birthers’ are Vindicated?

Two days ago I read an American Thinker article that challenged my current thinking. The result - I may have to acknowledge the possibility that Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to serve as President. If either possibility presented in the article proves true and a few loose ends are tied up concerning Obama’s mother, I will be forced to stop referring to Obama as Obama and begin referring to him as President Obama. Time will tell if ‘facts’ come out that beckon such a change. Jack Cashill’s presentation is very compelling, but will journalists and historians use their gravitas to drive the final nails in the eligibility issue coffin?



I do so want to turn away from the eligibility issue temporarily and focus on the cliff Obama is taking America over. Did you see that a majority of Democrats have a favorable view of Socialism? That’s going to be a main focus of the 2010 battle for Independents because spending, taxing, personal responsibility, voter dependency, federal debt, job creation, technological innovation and the role of government are all intimately intertwined with it. The reality is that November is fast approaching and every effort needs to be made to stop Obama’s socialist objectives.



But, because Presidential eligibility is such a bedrock issue, it’s almost impossible for those of us who care deeply about the Constitution and the rule of law to turn away based solely upon political calculations. Something has to be added to the calculation to tip the scales. If real journalists could find documentation verifying Mr. Cashill’s suppositions, I’m sure most of us challenging Obama’s eligibility would fall away satisfied because there would in fact be a there there.



As much as it has been denied and misconstrued, determining the ‘truth’ has always been the objective regarding the ‘eligibility’ question for the vast majority of those trying to look behind the Obama curtain. The media can name call and ridicule each and every one who has questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as President. (‘We’ certainly didn’t choose the moniker ‘birther’.) They can maliciously imply that each and every question we raise involves some race-based angst or worse. They can manipulate public opinion. They can even shape the public’s understanding of the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency. It’s not right, it’s not true, it’s not journalism - but they can do it. What they can’t do is rewrite history to say there wasn’t (isn’t) a ‘there, there’ regarding Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. What exactly the ‘there’ is hasn’t been discovered. Obama knows - but he’s not cooperating.



Let’s be honest, don’t you think objective legal historians/researchers looking at the facts, the circumstantial evidence, the testimony of his grandmother, the news reports from years earlier, the actions of Obama (withholding documents from the public, spending vast sums in legal fees, etc.), the ‘founders’ understanding of the term ‘natural born citizen’, the reasons for the Constitutional provision, the actual limitations of what can be proven from Obama’s online ‘Hawaiian birth certificate’, the lack of on point court decisions talking about the term ‘natural born citizen’, the differences in meanings for the terms ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’, etc., etc. - would realize that it’s almost a certainty that legitimate issues of some type exist? It may take historians many years to acquire the documentation that will vindicate the ‘birthers’. But rest assured, this issue is important enough that some historian will continue to pay attention. I wonder if a book is being out-lined at this very moment, maybe a few law review articles?



But seriously, looking at the big picture, is the status quo really the best situation for Obama?



Everyone knows that there’s a huge secret being kept. You know it. I know it. Orly Taitz knows it. Larry Sinclair knows it. Ahmadinejad knows it. Netanyahu knows it. Hu Jintao knows it. It’s like your driving on the interstate; you see a car pulled over with a police car on its bumper, lights flashing. As you drive past, you see one passenger toss something in the bushes when the State Trooper approaches the driver. You don’t know exactly what’s up but you know something is.



Right now the situation is that a substantial number of Americans cannot ethically recognize Obama as President. How can that be good for America? How can that be good for the military? Given that Obama has done nothing except post a document of limited evidentiary value online, how can anyone expect the concerns of Americans to be allayed?



The reason Obama is fighting this so hard, spending so much, is because he knows the outcome is a crapshoot. Taking the facts in a light most favorable to Obama, it still requires the judge(s) to find that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’ is either American citizenship equals ‘natural born citizenship’ or being a ‘natural born citizen’ requires only one of Obama’s parents to be an American citizen by birth or naturalization at the time of Obama’s birth.



Such an interpretation by the courts would necessarily require activist judges who believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document that changes with the times. Fortunately, the American justice system is not there yet because that would make the Constitution subject to the political whims of judges and politicians. Nevertheless, if such a decision did occur most Americans would live with the result.



Additionally, such a decision outcome would vindicate the ‘birthers’ because the Constitution had to be stretched beyond its original meaning and that would be the ‘there’. It would give Obama what he wants. But, it would be the crapshoot of his life!



The other factual possibility that could establish Obama as a ‘natural born citizen’ brings us back to the American Thinker article - the existence of a secret so big that it jumps right over the inconvenient problems arising from the citizenship of Barack Obama, Sr.



The nice thing about this possibility is that (for me) it explains a lot if true and it vindicates the ‘birthers’. And to top it off, it follows the principle of Occam’s razor.

… When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.…

It acknowledges the common sense desire a parent would have to make sure baby Obama has American citizenship and family legitimacy. It also recognizes that a parent would not have been worried about making sure Obama was a ‘natural born citizen’ because it is not realistic to think that a particular child will grow up to be President.



It makes it possible to imagine how and why the CIA and FBI appear to be covering for Obama.



It partly explains why Hillary Clinton, John McCain and the Republican Party didn’t raise the issue. What politician would risk raising such a possibility without absolute proof? (Gov. Jindal’s situation may have factored in for Republicans and for far left Democrats- effectively eviscerating one more parts of the Constitution is a progressive’s dream.)



It exposes how judges might have been persuaded to do a kabuki dance to avoid getting to the merits of eligibility cases and being forced to make the choice of wrongly expanding the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ to avoid rioting in the streets or expose a huge secret.



It also partly explains why Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity are being so reluctant to fully address the issue. However, if the possibility of an election-changing secret is true and Glenn Beck did not reveal it, did Mr. Beck aid the Progressives in gutting the meaning and force of Article 1, Section II of the Constitution?



It explains why the media is going so far out of their way to misdirect and vilify those asking questions. (Not they needed a lot of arm-twisting to go - given their coverage of John Edward’s affair/love child and Larry Sinclair’s allegations of cocaine use and sex with Obama in 1999.)



And finally, it vindicates the much-maligned ‘birthers’ because there is a there there. Either Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and is not eligible to serve as President or Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ and every other part of his life is a ‘natural born lie’/deception. (As more and more Americans are discovering.)



Regardless of outcome, ‘birthers’ will be vindicated.



Notwithstanding ‘birther’ vindication, it remains essential that we know the truth because though the actions and non-actions of the media, courts, talk-radio, and politicians - Article I, Section II of the Constitution has been weakened (eviscerated) for future elections unless individual States require Presidential Candidates to present proof of theirs and their parents’ citizenship.



Sorry, I haven’t given specific details about the American Thinker article’s revelations. To briefly mention the actual details doesn’t do justice, given that Jack Cashill has done such a nice job of laying it out. It’s a must read.

END

NOTE:

Thank you for considering this article!

I think the next phase has to be turning to State Legislatures to require proof of eligibility. Such legislation may stop Obama from attempting another run for which he may well not be eligible and protect Article II, Section 1.

...Notwithstanding ‘birther’ vindication, it remains essential that we know the truth because though the actions and non-actions of the media, courts, talk-radio, and politicians – Article I, Section II of the Constitution has been weakened (eviscerated) for future elections unless individual States require Presidential Candidates to present proof of theirs and their parents’ citizenship....

Hopefully some of you will write your State legislators. Feel free to copy any article on my blog if it can aid in your efforts.
Stress the need for 3 birth certificates. One from the candidate and 2 from parents (or proof of naturalization)! Candidate's parents have to have been US citizens at the time of his or her birth.
Thank you for your time and efforts.

Dear Talk Radio - Presidential Eligibility - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report -

Talk Radio Related -

Dear Talk Radio:



This week I wrote an article, ‘Trumping Political and Judicial Courage’, that allowed me to speculate about the various reasons allegations related to Obama’s eligibility to serve as President have thus far been ignored, ridiculed, quashed, mischaracterized, and/or generally swept under the rug. My musings always came back to power, elitism and politics – and their pursuit. However, the reason I’m writing Talk Radio today touches on one specific question that I found intriguing enough to make the subtitle of my article.

Did Hope for Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?

I know that Talk Radio’s Rush Limbaugh has made a joke or two about the subject. (What do God and Obama have in common? Neither has a birth certificate.) However, I haven’t heard Sean Hannity address the issue. Maybe he’s made a passing remark, but nothing in depth. Michael Savage is the only one that actually had Philip Berg on his radio program during the election (that I know of). Glenn Beck on the other hand has felt the need to ridicule everyone who raises the issue. Even though, it’s very clear that he and his staff have not done sufficient research or analysis regarding who can be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.



This brings me to my question for Talk Radio. I’ve heard that many would like to see Gov. Jindal represent the Republican Party as its nominee for President in 2012. Rush brought his name up during the last election as a VP possibility. Personally I like Governor Jindal of Louisiana a lot and wish for him nothing but the best.



However, in researching my last article, I discovered that ‘Gov. Jindal was born in Louisiana in 1971 and his parents are Indian immigrants who came here to attend graduate school.’ Gov. Jindal’s father left his family village in 1970 so it’s very unlikely that he was an American citizen at the time of Bobby’s birth. As far as I can tell, having a parent who is not an American citizen at the time of one’s birth creates an impenetrable barrier to being a ‘natural born citizen’, much less having two parents who are not citizens.



Here’s my question:

Given that Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that ‘no person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President’… would Gov. Jindal, who was born in Louisiana, having immigrant (non-citizen) parents, be eligible to serve as President should he decide to run in 2012?

I have a legal background, but I’m retired and live very rural. So, I was wondering if Talk Radio might help me (all of us) out? It would be great if Talk Radio would invite a few people on your shows to discuss the topic. (There are additional issues such as the effect of parents having dual citizenships, 14^th Amendment, etc. that would be helpful to explore.)



I know, I know – most Talk Radio may have glanced at this issue and dismissed it, have instructions from higher ups not to discuss Obama’s eligibility or maybe, they’ve been threatened, but that’s not what I’m asking. I only want you to talk about Gov. Jindal’s potential eligibility to serve as President and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.



If Gov. Jindal does run, this will be a critical question to answer before the 2012 Republican National Convention. And, much I would hate it; I know that many others and I will be asking these same questions and many more eligibility lawsuits will be filed.



Such a circus in 2012 would be a big mess and Talk Radio could do the country a BIG favor today! The whole Bobby Jindal eligibility issue can be defused in 2010 and therefore, allow Republicans, regular Democrats, Independents, and Tea Party folks to focus on who they like or don’t like, without fear of distraction.



If Talk Radio were really looking for answers/truth and brought in Constitutional Law experts to thoroughly explore the phrase ‘natural born citizen’, I’m sure many would tune in discover what the Jindal eligibility issue is truly about and set the record straight regarding the rhetoric that has been so pervasive online this past year or so.



Thank you for you time considering this matter.



Sincerely,



Zach Jones



PS – It probably wouldn’t be such a big mess because I have faith that Gov. Jindal would provide all the documentation necessary to make the determination of his eligibility. Easy – no lawsuits, no worry among the troops about if they are following ‘unlawful order’, everyone could rest easy.



Note to Readers:



I am sending this letter by email or other means to the following people hoping to get some response:



Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, The Republican National Committee, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, and Mario Apuzzo, Dr. Orly Taitz, and a few others in the coming days. (Dr. Orly Taitz’s site is frequently under cyber attack these days because of the efforts she’s making, so I’m not going provide her link.)



I hope readers will take it upon yourself to forward this letter, my question, or your own letter/questions to your local/national talk radio personalities, your lawyer/judge friends and family, state election officials, military friends and family, State and Congressional Representatives, maybe your local FBI, Attorney General, etc. Anyone you can think of! Post it wherever you like. Or, hold on to it and send it to your state election officials in 2011 before the 2012 candidates try to get their names on the ballot!



Wouldn’t it be nice to have this discussion and answers about Gov. Jindal’s eligibility before the next Presidential Election?



Take care!