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.

Democratic ‘Birther’ Strategy, Media Bias, Liberty, and the Jindal Response

The BOPAC Report:

The 2010 Democratic ‘Birther’ Strategy, Media Bias, Liberty, and the Jindal Response

This week there appears to be numerous Google ‘news’ search results concerning Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, an up tick. Not surprisingly, the dominant theme the media is using to present this subject is to closely associate any and all eligibility questions with the pejorative term ‘birther’ and little else. The ‘birther’ term probably began innocently enough as a quick and easy way to describe someone who does not believe Obama is a ‘citizen’ or believes he was born in Kenya or some other place back in 2008. While in fact, the ‘eligibility’ issue is much broader than either of these meanings.

Notwithstanding the eligibility issue’s complexity, when Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ appeared online, media supporters quickly realized it would likely appear farfetched to the casual reader that the document could mean anything other than absolute proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. As such, Obama’s support in the media seized upon the possibility that they could easily ignore the actual parameters of the issue and shape the news to redefine the ‘eligibility’ issue to mean: if Obama has a Hawaiian Birth Certificate, of course he is a ‘citizen’, and of course, this equals Obama is eligible to be President.

Voila, the media found their vehicle to infer that anyone questioning Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States was a complete and utter fool.

Because, most people pay little attention to and/or fail to verify the details of news stories (most barely read past the headlines), the media has been able to pull off their slight of hand. And as the media is well aware, once people commit to a version of the facts they are reluctant to revisit an issue. Especially, given that many of the normal players (Hillary, Republicans, and the courts) for their own reasons have been reluctant to touch this story, it makes the casual observer’s commitment to his or her position even stronger. Thus, the term ‘birther’ has become an effective tool for the media and politicians to use to ridicule their opponents.

Allow me to give a quick statement regarding those sincerely questioning Obama’s eligibility to serve. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution requires anyone serving as President must be a ‘natural born citizen’. The ‘natural born citizen’ provision was originally put in place to make sure that whoever held the Office of the Presidency would not be conflicted by allegiances to any other country. This is why questions about where a candidate was born matters. It is also why questions regarding the citizenship of the candidate’s parents matter; and any extensions of the parents’ allegiances to the candidate matter.

The Presidential eligibility issue is (for obvious reasons) entirely focused on complete allegiance to the United States. Therefore, where a candidate was born (being a U.S. ‘citizen’) is only a part of the determination of his or her status as a ‘natural born citizen’. The two terms do not mean the same thing.

Just as a warning - if you happen to read a ‘news’ article about the Presidential eligibility issue and you see the term ‘birther’ throughout, never or rarely see the term ‘natural born citizen’ or when you do, you see it equated with the term ‘citizen’; you can be fairly sure that you are having the wool pulled over your eyes.

Naturally, I did a few advanced Google ‘News’ searches this morning. (Google is funny in that it does not always give completely consistent results, but trends can be established.) This past week there were 74 articles identified as news that contained the term ‘natural born citizen’, 44 of which did not include the term ‘birther’. There were only 40 articles that included both terms. In contrast, this past week there were 233 articles identified as news that contained the term ‘birther’, 200 of which did not include the term ‘natural born citizen’. Talk about media bias!

Think about it.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution reads as follows:

No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President….

So of 233 ‘news’ articles this week that use the term ‘birther’ only 33 used the term ‘natural born citizen’? Utterly amazing. Do you feel manipulated yet?

Anyway, as stated above, the term ‘birther’ has become a tool for the media and politicians to use to ridicule their opponents without actually having to look closely at the issue.

Now we learn that ‘birther’ is going to be part of the Democratic Party’s election strategy for the 2010 elections. Politico reports that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is distributing a memo containing a series of questions that Democrats should force their opponents to answer.

The very first question is: “Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?” (Notice that they left out the appropriate terminology, ‘natural born citizen’.)



Given that the media (for the moment) seems to have successfully redefined the eligibility issue, this gotcha question must be approached cautiously by potential candidates. Rest assured, it doesn’t concern the media or Democratic politicians one little bit that there are legitimate Constitutional questions about Obama’s potential lack of eligibility. Ridicule, misrepresentation and villification are front and center in the 2010 Democrat election playbook and the ‘birther’ strategy is in fact already being deployed by Chris Matthews. Therefore, every candidate must be ready for this question!

I happen to have a few ideas how Independent and Republican candidates can answer this question.

The main thing, be honest. If you do not believe that this is an issue, just answer I have no reason to believe that Obama is not a Citizen. However, I would suggest that you are careful not to say you have ‘no reason’ to believe that Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ because that answer may come back to bite you.


If the question is asked about Obama being a ‘citizen’, a candidate might answer –


*Well (Chris Matthews), as you know there’s a difference between being an ordinary ‘citizen’ and being a ‘natural born citizen’ – and the Supreme Court has not adequately defined the term ‘natural born citizen’ with any degree of specificity as far as I can tell.

Historically, it involved making sure the person leading the country and our military does not have divided loyalties.

As to the question is Obama a citizen – I haven’t seen anything that would cause me to believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii. However, Obama could have easily put the issue to rest by being more forthright about releasing documents that every other similarly situated candidate would have released. That would have been the common sense thing to do. He still can!

*Well Chris, I’ll be happy to answer your question if you answer three questions for me. As you know, Gov. Jindal may be running on the Republican ticket in 2012 and his parents were citizens of India when he was born in Louisiana. Do you believe that Gov. Jindal is a citizen? Do you believe he is a ‘natural born citizen’? What’s the difference between ‘citizens’ and ‘natural born citizens’?

If Chris answers Gov. Jindal is a citizen, is a natural born citizen and there is no difference between the two terms - then simply shake your head affirmatively and indicate that whatever the law is that applies to Gov. Jindal should apply to Obama. Follow up by saying that you would hate to see Gov. Jindal have to address these types of questions if they are not necessary. You might add that you’ve seen no evidence indicating that Obama is not an American ‘citizen’. Then ask: Chris, would you mind having your staff research the question about the differences between ‘citizens’ and ‘natural born citizens’? (Maybe this would force the media to actually research or reveal their research regarding the Constitutional question of who is eligible to serve as President.)

I don’t know about you, but I really don’t like the media (or anyone else for that matter) manipulating how Constitutional questions about who can serve are answered. It’s not Chris Matthews job. It’s not the media’s job. It’s not the candidate’s job. It is the sworn duty of the courts, State Secretaries of Elections, Members of Congress, the FBI, the military, et. al. to make sure the Constitution is protected.

One thing is for certain - it is the media’s job to make sure those in power are doing their jobs and that the American people know every relevant detail about those seeking office, especially for the Presidency. They are failing. What can be more relevant than knowing if a candidate is eligible to hold the office he or she is seeking?

This sort of ad hock, de facto, amendment of the Constitution of the United States by slight of hand, turning a blind eye is not acceptable and should not be tolerated by the left, right or center. It is a slippery sloop that undermines the principles America was founded on and enumerated in the Constitution more than two hundred years ago. These principles and protections have served America well and should not to be trifled with -especially, by the media.

Today the left and the media might not think the eligibility issue is any big deal. However, next time this comes up, or something else, it may be a BIG deal to the left. It depends on who holds the reigns of power and how they view that power. That’s the danger inherent in viewing the Constitution as a living, changing document as the far left favors. It’s the danger of having the Supreme Court look at a diminished Constitution and interpreting it to suit their purposes, image, or to do their appointer’s bidding. The Constitution will mean nothing.

We must all remember that when free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to prosper - our liberties - are temporarily entrusted to our leaders – it is with the deep understanding, knowledge and conviction that how they handle our liberties are limited by the Constitution of the United States. We do not want Chris Matthews or any other media personage to impose some watered down version of Constitution upon us.

The reasons the ‘Founders’ included the Article II, Section I eligibility restrictions remain as relevant today as they were in the 1700’s. All one has to do is look to the shenanigans Obama and his minions have been attempting in Washington to see how true this is – prosecuting Navy Seals, persecuting CIA interrogators, giving Terrorists the same rights as American citizens, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, surrendering U.S. sovereignty, trying to close GITMO for purely political reasons, socializing healthcare, etc., etc., etc.

- You know what would really put the media on the defensive and maybe cause America to get to the bottom of this eligibility issue?

What would happen if Gov. Bobby Jindal found the opportunity and encouragement to respond to a question about Presidential eligibility by saying that he very much doubts that he (Jindal) is a ‘natural born citizen’? The media would have a cow!

Any ideas how to make that happen?