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?

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!

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

The BOPAC Report:

Trumping Political and Judicial Courage

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

When questions about Obama’s eligibility to serve as President arose, I immediately recognized that this could be the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, bigger even than Watergate. The allegations, if true, would have created widespread political turmoil and would have had to involve people, high up people, ignoring and/or covering up facts. How could a young Senator from Illinois have gotten so far, so quickly, in national politics without some in both the Democratic & Republican Parties taking notice, researching, discovering details of his past and recognizing that there was a BIG potential problem? Especially, given that every other person in Washington is a lawyer, people knew, the media had to have known, known both of the problem and its ramifications. After all, it’s the political big league in Washington.



Having a legal background, I decided to do my own research to satisfy my curiosity and it became abundantly clear that legitimate questions existed and continue to exist. Questions regarding interpretation of Article II, Section I of the Constitution, questions of original intent, British/Kenyan law, acquisition of citizenship, questions about Obama’s birthplace, his adoption, his educational scholarships, his parent’s foreign allegiance/citizenship, his prior inadvertent admissions, questions about his passport(s), etc., exist with sufficient basis in law and/or fact to warrant serious investigation and judicial review. So, like many others at the time, I sat back and waited for the media firestorm to begin. And I waited, and waited, and waited. Not a peep from the media, Hillary, McCain or Republicans. Why?



With an issue this big involving the first competitive African-American running for the Presidency of the United States, his intentional withholding of records and the possibility that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements for the Office, I just knew that every stone would be quickly overturned to get to the bottom of it. Even though it’s common knowledge that the American media is pretty much left of center when it comes to politics and everything else - ‘the story’, this story was SO big that I was sure they would not be able to ignore it. It wasn’t like other political stories the media ignored such as John Edwards’ love child or Larry Sinclair’s allegations of drug use and sex with Obama. This story went to bedrock, the requirements of who can be President and who can serve as Commander In Chief of our military. To my surprise, next to nothing came from the mainstream media.



Many expected Republicans to wait as long as they possibly could before raising the issue because of the political/media ramifications. It seemed certain that they were praying for the media to take the lead so they could stay on the high road. After enduring eight years of constant Bush bashing and constant negative media spin about Republicans, it’s easy to appreciate their concerns. It’s a shame that Republican fear may have trumped their doing the right thing early on. Had they manned up, we probably would not be in the current situation of having our rights and freedoms in jeopardy.



Republicans had seen the media for a decade artfully portray them as corrupt, uncaring politicians on a reckless spending spree. This portrayal led directly to the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. Even though, a Republican spending spree pales when compared to an Obama/Reid/Pelosi spending spree. Even though, Republican ‘caring’ has historically meant a limited federal government helping those in need with a hand up in ways that would not bankrupt the nation (sustainability) and Democrat ‘caring’ has historically meant a growing government trying to bait those with needs, real or otherwise, into becoming permanently dependent. What Republicans could count on in 2008 was that the mainstream media would likely report everything Republicans dared say about this critical Constitutional issue as racism, expressed and/or implied.



They were scared of the media in 2008. They were in the political wilderness. However, I believe fear was not the only factor keeping Republicans from speaking from conviction. Republicans might have been reluctant to rock Obama’s boat because their own leadership (those who would have fully understood Obama’s agenda, his past associations and ideology) may have been considering the possibility that losing to Obama might not be so bad.



Maybe they realized that if Obama were elected, Americans would likely be so disappointed and shocked by his policies that Republicans might quickly sweep back in power. Instead of being beaten up for eternity by the media for spoiling the first African American’s opportunity to reach the Presidency, they could be seen as adults setting things right after a rebellious kid’s screw ups. Yes, I think political calculations could well have been trumping principles. After all, the Party did have a few bright stars in waiting such as Gov. Bobby Jindal. They could just bide their time, hope America wakes up as Obama revealed himself and be ready to step up.



Jindal, he’s the young Republican Governor who had a 77% approval rating in 2008. Jindal had taken over the reigns of Louisiana shortly after the embarrassing former Democratic Governor’s performance dealing with Katrina. Louisiana is also the home of some fairly egregious examples of Democratic corruption such as Rep. Jefferson’s conviction and Senator Landrieu appearing to sell her vote for $300,000,000 dollars to Harry Reid. Gov. Bobby Jindal is definitely a rising star in the Republican Party, a fiscal conservative, principled and someone not closely associated with President Bush. He is seen as a leader with a great future. I can certainly see him in the U.S. Senate.



As time passed, more and more lawsuits were filed (over 50) challenging Obama’s eligibility and nothing - nothing from the media, nothing from Hillary Clinton, nothing Republicans in Washington, nothing from John McCain. The issue was a hot potato that carried a truckload of political risk. Democrats, who were acutely aware that they risked losing the carefully groomed dependence of many minority voters, wouldn’t touch it. Politicians of both parties were afraid of the charge of racism - and for good reason. All they had to do was watch the vicious attacks against eligibility attorneys Philip Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, and Mario Apuzzo.



Given that many politicians lack backbone, those of us concerned about the issue had little choice but to put faith with the American judicial system and hope that they would answer conclusively the questions of Obama’s eligibility. Well, so much for faith. Notwithstanding their oaths to protect the Constitution, judges apparently wanted nothing to do with this political hot potato either. Courts have been falling all over themselves from the beginning to do every legal contortion necessary to avoid granting discovery, examining facts and/or applying the law regarding this eligibility issue.



However, we are not defeated. Legal challenges and opportunities for challenges remain and it will only take one principled judge to resolve the eligibility issue. Is Obama a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ eligible to serve as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of its military? But, we all must remember that most judges begin their careers on the bench as politicians; and so far, politics trump a magistrate’s sworn duty.



Had the winner of the 2008 Presidential election been Governor Jindal, you can be sure there would have been endless lines of Constitutional experts brought in by FOX, CNN, MS-NBC, CBS, ABC to explain the history of the eligibility provision, the underlying issues and facts relevant to a reasoned determination. You see, Bobby Jindal was born in Louisiana in 1971 and his parents are Indian immigrants who came here to attend graduate school, nearly the exact factual situation as Obama’s (accepting a Hawaii birth). And had 50+ lawsuits been filed against a Presidential candidate Jindal, the media would have been in a frenzy trying to outdo each other, it would have been like the O.J. trial. I also believe that both the federal & state courts would have been decidedly more eager to get to the merits so that they could be seen as protecting the Constitution, the Presidency and apple pie.



But it wasn’t candidate Jindal - it was candidate Obama. So, instead of having extensive coverage and thoroughly investigating the issue, the media has given next to no coverage. And when the mainstream media decides to cover the issue, they do it so they can spin the story to wrongly equate the meaning of ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born ‘citizen’ - and to paint those raising the issue as idiots. Where are the real journalists? With the exception of FOX, this is clearly the media’s ‘thrill up the leg’ political bias trumping journalistic principle.



With FOX, I think of them the same way as I think of Republicans. Because FOX is constantly vilified by Democrats and the left lending media, this potato was so hot that even they could not risk being wrong or having a court come to a different conclusion. FOX’s fear trumped their journalistic principle.



I wonder if the Republican leadership figured that if they didn’t complain about Obama in 2008, they would be able to count on Democrats and the Obama media not complaining about Jindal’s eligibility issues should he decide to run in 2012? My first thought was that having such an expectation would be a fool’s dream. However, I’m not so sure now. They all now have a lot of political capital invested in attempting to effectively rewrite the eligibility provision of the Constitution by some sort of contorted waiver/estoppel/abandonment theory. It’s all underhanded and improper; but as long as courts continue to abdicate their own responsibilities, who can know what determined politicians might accomplish?



The whole mess smells more and more like ‘the players’ in Washington have gotten together and decided, or implicitly understand, that the issue and the Constitution are to be ignored. Every player appears to be serving their own self-interest, burying their principles, avoiding risk, and using the mainstream media’s avoidance of the issue as political cover. If the mainstream media ever takes the lead and does their job, the other players will be forced to do theirs as well.



Even when, reports were coming out in Canada that a radio talk show host had revealed that he, his career, family had been threatened; the mainstream American media simply ignored the story. No real investigation, nothing, nada was started. This smells really bad.



Regarding the Democratic leadership, anyone watching the recent antics of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid concerning the healthcare takeover (with their buying of votes, conducting the people’s business in secret, not allowing debate or time to actually read the bills, misrepresentations, manipulation of the numbers, and their constant ridicule those in opposition) must realize that it’s not the means that count to these people – only the ends. Therefore, I have no doubt that they would turn a blind eye to the possibility that the Constitution might have been violated by Obama and those who have attested to his eligibility. Oh, that was Nancy Pelosi who did that.



Regarding Hillary Clinton, she’s an old school hardball politician who is probably worrying more about her status and legacy now; rather than actually doing the right thing and demanding that Obama provide documentation proving that he is a natural born citizen. I guess it’s not a fight she’s willing to take on given that she is also the wife of the ‘first black President’.



Regarding the mainstream media, all you need to do is check who has been a consistent donor to Obama & Democratic politicians through the years. Then check for yourself what they are reporting, what they are leaving out, how stories are slanted, how far are they slanted and the frequency of displays of bias. There was a study out of, I believe, UCLA around 2004 that found that 18 of 20 major media outlets were left of center and that Brit Hume and the Drudge Report did indeed provide fair and balanced news coverage. Today, the media appears to have dropped all pretense of being objective.



Regarding John McCain, he is also a seasoned politician who probably values his own legacy more than tackling such a big political nightmare. Especially, given that some have questioned his own ‘natural born citizen’ status, he might prefer someone else take the lead.



A few Republican politicians have displayed courage by trying to introduce legislation that would require that candidates must provide proof that they are in fact eligible for the offices they seeking. Of course, Nancy Pelosi is keeping this buried and it will not see the light of day while she is the Speaker of the House. This type of legislation is extremely important should Republicans gain power in 2010. It cannot be allowed to stand that politicians can willy-nilly change the effect of the Constitution without going through the proper process. Talk about elitism!



Representative Nathan Deal has made the boldest direct display of courage to date by sending Obama a letter asking that he provide proof that he is a natural born citizen. Congressman Deal was of course immediately, repeatedly and viciously attacked for doing this one small act to protect the integrity of the Constitution. However, Rep. Deal’s act is very important because it provides a proof that a Member of Congress had specific concerns over Obama’s eligibility to serve. It is the first time that a sitting President has been confronted in this way. Well done! History must not be scrubbed to hide Obama’s probable criminal deception to obtain the Office of the Presidency.



Republicans took the easiest path in 2008 because they were fearful and had been relegated to the wilderness in 2006. With the emergence of the grassroots Tea Party revolt, Republicans are now poised to make substantial gains in 2010. I believe people are looking for genuine, principled, limited government, fiscal conservative leadership. Unfortunately, current Republicans will have to do this year because they are the best choice for the nation until better candidates emerge. However, all candidates should take heed that millions of Americans recognize that they must pay attention to what Congress is doing.



And just a friendly reminder, those of us who are concerned about the eligibility issue will also be paying attention. Please don’t consider running Gov. Jindal for the Presidency in 2012. As much as we (I) may like him, he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and we (I) will not put our politics above principles founded in the Constitution!



Putting the country, the Constitution, & the rule of law ahead of politicians’ self-interest were called for in 2008 - and the call was ignored. Democrats and Republicans alike failed to answer.



After rereading this piece, I am more discouraged and fearful that the courts may well let down America, her Constitution and her people by failing to take the bull by the horns and look at the issue of Obama’s eligibility. (The court system was the only institution that I had a great deal of faith in but it looks like faith has been misplaced.)



It may ultimately fall to the military (who deserve to have a Commander In Chief who is in fact eligible to serve in that honored position and is legally capable of issuing ‘lawful orders’) to utilize the Uniform Code of Military Justice and demand that Obama establish the facts.



May I suggest Section 935. Art. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY and possibly



Section 883. Art. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION



Any person who--



(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…



[caption id="attachment_2014" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Obama's New Commander-In-Chief Uniform to Battle Low Morale in Military! Will Obama wear it to Navy Seals Prosecution?"][/caption]

American Soldiers - Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission

American Soldiers - Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission

The Whys and Whats Becoming Harder to Answer?

Families that honor military service are spread all across this nation. I grew up in one. Even as a teenager in the sixties, I remember knowing that freedom wasn’t free. My father had served in Patton’s 3rd Army, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and served as a guard at the Nuremberg War Trials. How could I not know the price of freedom? WWII, now that was a just war. Everyone knew it. Everyone knew the war had to be won at all costs because failure clearly meant tyranny and death for an entire people, the Jewish people. Everyone knew, even the media knew the Whys and Whats. Why they were fighting? What they were fighting for? They knew the cost of winning and losing! And, victory wasn’t a dirty word.



However, my brother and I served in the United States Navy during a time in America’s history dominated by numbing callousness, selfishness, and indifference. The loss of the Vietnam War brought about by the media and endless protests of duplicitous, naïve dreamers and schemers; the festering pain of Watergate continuously exploited by politicians in D.C., the good but lackluster caretaker President Ford portrayed as a bumbling stumbling fool on Saturday Night Live, the My Lai massacre and Lt. Calley’s conviction not quite distant enough to avoid its stench, and a war/corruption weary people’s vote for change promised by Jimmy Carter all marked this period. Amazingly, like today, Carter’s change didn’t live up to expectations. Instead it brought gas lines, high inflation, 20+ percent interest rates and high unemployment – despair.



And the military was not spared in the mid 70’s. My awareness was that Carter was always attacking their budgets, minimizing the Soviet/communist threat, and interfering with matters that should have been left with the military, like his pardon of draft dodgers. Like closing GITMO, that action was certainly more of an appeasement to the far left than anything else. Democrats have been courting them for a long time.



Not unlike today’s media, the 70’s media reported much of their “news” in ways that portrayed the military, its leadership and contracting in the worst possible light. At the time, having credibility, it did appear as though reporters were merely following “the story” where it led. You know, paying homage to the type of Journalism that revealed the dirt in Watergate. But, considering the corruption of today’s media, I’m probably being too kind. The price of every screw, hammer and ladder was held up as symbols of systemic corruption. And just like today, the broad-brush criticism and vilification drifted through the ranks to land on the individual soldier.



The cloud of post Vietnam warmonger shame continued staining the uniform in the minds of many Americans. The 70’s media and Jane Fonda had done a good job of mixing up the good and bad guys, buying time for the Vietcong. I suppose they weren’t comfortable with the concept of winning either. Thankfully though, Carter’s dreadful economy and gas lines were overwhelming and required most of the media’s attention. The vast majority of those who did love the military were tired and let down by Nixon; and those who had been in the streets had their guy in Oval Office. So almost everyone seemed to be trying to turn the page. And with that turn of the page, the American soldier seemed to be all but forgotten. The soldier’s duty to protect and defend remained but the camera’s glare was gone. That’s my memory anyway.



Carter’s negative effect on military morale and cohesion was palpable. The lack of any real resolve or credibility was clearly visible. His handling of the Iranian Revolution and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini were abysmal. It was weird, we were training Iranian pilots at Naval Air Memphis in 75 - a couple of wrong moves by a weak President and poof, 52 Americans were being held hostage for over a year.



The loss in Vietnam, Watergate, protests in the streets, President Ford, President Carter, hard ball politics and a deepening economic crisis were conspiring against the military. We were not immune to the tumult. It was like a powerful magnet kept our compass spinning. Drugs seemed to be everywhere in the military and military discipline a nearly foreign concept. To be fair, after Vietnam, many military officers were not that gun ho. (I suppose some had begun to believe that Vietnam was an un-winnable shameful mistake - maybe some felt that everyone should be forgiven their part- including draft dodgers – some were just tired of it and decompression, down time was what the American soldier needed. Who knows?)



To illustrate how bad it was - in my squadron (I was an In-Flight Electronics Tech), when one of our P-3’s was scheduled to be washed, it was not unheard of for the wash crew leader to provide a few lines of cocaine to speed up both the process and the morale. Officers seemed willing to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. We were lucky no one ever got hurt. (Remind anyone of the PC military leadership today?)



Come to think of it, the “cold war” with the USSR (which was fairly hot then) was probably one of the main forces that held together our sense of “duty” and “responsibility” during the Carter years. The soldier’s duty to protect and defend always remains. But at any given time, the military is more - or less capable and the junior soldier accepts it as he or she finds it. What choice do they have? (I joined when I came of age and was expecting to find the military my older brothers served in. But - it was very different.)



It was a perfect storm that had brought us Carter Presidency. And with it’s battered and bruised image, the United States military seemed to have a hell of time riding out that storm until President Reagan could put his hands to the reigns. Reagan’s zero-tolerance drug testing came along after I got out and things started turning around rather quickly according to my brother. I believe the foundation that President Reagan built (or rebuilt) continues to serve soldiers today and will not be easily surrendered by the military leadership.



Well, hopefully it won’t.



It’s one of my regrets concerning my military service that Ronald Reagan was not yet President. If evil were there, Reagan would have seen, heard, spoke about & done something about it. He didn’t close his eyes and hope evil would go away. I checked a dozen or so years ago with another In-Flight tech I served with about some of the guys (friends) in our electronic shop and learned that 3 had done some jail/prison time and 1 had gone through rehab. Problems usually don’t just go away.



As a young enlisted man at that time, I went with the flow because…because I was a kid, had never been out of the country, military was not my career and I didn’t know shit from shinola. The military and the flow of the military felt much bigger than I was. But, I loved the mission and flying was where I wanted to be. Who knows, if Reagan had been there, I might have retired from the Navy.



See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil is not a command structure that serves the military or the individual soldier well. Neither is going with the flow.



But it’s the military leadership, the career guys and gals, who have a shot at controlling or changing the flow. Yes, sometimes they fail, but it’s their job to address the issues. It’s especially egregious when they, like politicians, just won’t see or acknowledge that something is becoming a problem – when they don’t want to get ‘their’ hands dirty or risk jeopardizing ‘their’ career paths. Two words – Ft. Hood.



And so I come to write this conflicted accolade to today’s American Soldier.



Tracking submarines, keeping tabs on ships, flying cover missions, no matter the whether, joint exercises, injuries and casualties, doing the mission, doing my duty were what kept me most grounded in the military. It answered the Whys and Whats for me. It was when politics, drugs, alcohol and all the BS disappeared and one knew Why they were serving, What they were protecting and how much it could cost. I knew, understood and believed down deep that I was protecting freedom, the Constitution and my family. As corny as that may sound, it made it worth doing - no matter how flawed.



Soldiers serving in the first few years after 9/11 must have had an incredible sense of the Whys and Whats that carried them through each and every day.



In the 70’s, war weariness, drugs, alcohol, lack of strong leadership, lack of discipline, being made to feel like polar opposites of the culture promoted by the media, and a general lack of encouragement from a tired American public were as great a threat to our concepts of duty, cohesion, sacrifice, morale and the mission as was the U.S.S.R and communism. I’m sure these same factors give al qaeda, the taliban, and other Islamic terrorists cause for hope.



Of course, we had politicians undermining the military for their own advantage and a biased media. But from my perspective, the corruption of politicians and the media in the 70’s - pale to what the military encounters today. It has seemed that for the past half dozen years, the far left and the media have been actively trying to bring about the defeat of the American military by taking political correctness to the extreme, urging untenable rules of engagement and intentionally mixing up the good & bad guys for political/ideological gain. And yet, our military continued doing an amazing job defending freedom around the world.



And of course, we had politicians who would have undermined the American economics system to replace it with a bigger nanny state. Democrats did control Congress during President Ford’s term and during President Carter’s disastrous four years. They did screw things up but they didn’t do it in a manner that couldn’t be undone. But they were nowhere near as bad as today’s leftist/Marxist Democrats.



Today, we have Obama in the Oval Office and a Democratic controlled Congress (dominated by the radical left since 2006) and they are galloping as fast as they can towards creating a socialist system that would make Vladimir Ilyich Lenin proud. If you look past the rhetoric you easily see that they are attempting to create larger and larger voting blocks that are wholly dependent on the federal government, hands out, afraid to question anything, afraid to vote for anyone calling for personal responsibility. Having a nation of sheeple, like birds at a bird feeder, is not good for the country or our future. Look at the recent action Obama took diminishing our American sovereignty on Dec. 17. Constitution be damned. Does anyone really think the Second Amendment is safe?



And yet, today’s military continues to do an amazing job defending freedom overseas.



I use the phrase “defending freedom overseas” instead of “around the world” because, as much as I love them, I’m not sure they are defending our freedoms at home. I can’t really blame the enlisted soldier because when I was in the military, I didn’t have time to keep up with what politicians at home were attempting to do to us. I basically thought politicians were all self-serving pieces of crap and the voting process would weed them out. Unfortunately, that’s not the case today. (The statement that politicians “were all self-serving pieces of crap” is still accurate, but the vote might not be able to undo the damage they are doing to our freedoms and the Constitution.)



And the military leadership continues to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and ignore “the flow” that’s becoming more and more turbulent.



(And the American soldier is expected to accept “the flow” as he or she finds it?)



It seems to me that today’s American Soldier now finds him or herself in the untenable position of having their oath, duty and mission tortured by Obama and the Congress. (It must be especially untenable for the soldier who joined because they thought they were protecting freedom and the Constitution.)



The mission – I think of this as each bomb dropped, bullet fired, enemy captured or killed, each military plan executed, each foot of ground captured and held, each training and standing up of local police and military to make it possible for our exit, taking reasonable measures to safeguard the innocent in the battle theatre and continually maintaining readiness in order to protect those of us at home.



The mission becomes tortured when political correctness runs amuck allowing terror attacks like in Ft. Hood, when rules of engagement make it more dangerous for our guys, when war plans and decisions are made by politicians for their own political reasons (closing GITMO, the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in NY), failing to realize that sometimes terrorists deserve and receive fat lips from a Navy Seals during capture (PC amuck), persecuting the CIA for being a little rough on terrorists when the information they are seeking could save lives, when winning and neutralizing the enemy is not the objective, etc., etc., etc.



This is when it becomes hard to answer Whats and Whys. What the hell are we doing fighting like this? What is this doing to keep my family and their freedoms safe? What will happen when some politician pulls us out? What will keep us from having to come back? What can I do to make it right? Why won’t they let us win?



It must be hard to go with the flow under such circumstances, hard to keep morale high and harder to think about signing up for more.



The duty – I think of this as the soldier doing his or her best to live up to the oath they took when they enlisted. Basically the duty is to support, protect and defend the Constitution and the freedoms/protections flowing from it to each and every citizen.



The Oath of Enlistment:

…I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God….

Even though Obama, Pelosi and Reid would prefer that our American soldiers protect and defend some socialist version of the Constitution drafted in conference without consulting the People or States (like healthcare), thankfully that is not the case. Not yet anyway.



Hopefully every soldier read and understood the Constitution before they put on the uniform because it is an awesome responsibility.



A soldier’s duty and the Oath become tortured when the rights of terrorists are elevated (created out of thin air) and are put above the safety of the American soldier, when Obama diminishes our American sovereignty, when Obama’s Attorney General’s personal vendetta against President Bush and the CIA appears to influence his decisions to try the 9/11 mastermind in NYC and to bring other enemy combatants to the US for show trials, and when Obama and Eric Holder appear more interested in prosecuting a war against the CIA to appease the far left instead of against Islamic terrorists, when military officers put political correctness above their duty to protect soldiers under their command (Ft. Hood), when military officers and politicians choose to ignore critical parts of Constitution because it would bring trouble to them (they may be called names).



All of these illustrate situations where officers up the chain of command, including the “Commander In Chief”, appear ready to shirk their duty to the Constitution and America Soldiers under their command so they can protect their relatively trivial career ambitions and/or pursue their personal political agendas.



This is when it becomes hard to answer the Whats and Whys. What does support and defend the Constitution mean? Who are the enemies of the United States? Why am I defending something that seems optional for my superior officers? What is really important to the chain of command - advancement, career or the Oath? Who are the Oathkeepers? Why should I obey my superior officers when they choose to ignore parts of the Constitution? What’s the point? What am I doing that protects the Constitution and the Freedoms of my family and friends?



For me and millions of other Americans, the one provision of the Constitution that has been most blatantly ignored by Command - and has followed/plagued Obama throughout his time in the Oval Office, cost him “at least $1.7 million” keeping his records hidden, and seriously calls into question whether he can legally act as Commander In Chief and issue any “lawful orders” is Article II, Section 1.

Article II, Section 1 – …“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”…

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is not a command structure that serves the military or the individual soldier well.



The “natural born citizen” issue will not go away and I’m sure it’s on the minds of many in the military; it affects morale, re-enlistment decisions, and how many traditional military supporters view the institution. It’s similar to how the epidemic of drug use in the 70’s military effected civilians & soldiers who knew about the problem and cared about what it said about the institution.



When I served, the military had a disease that needed to be cleaned up before the uniform could shine in all its glory.



Our military has a disease that can only be healed by thoroughly investigating the allegations against Obama and taking the appropriate actions. Shine the light on all his records. If the answer turns out that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen, then that’s great – the disease will be cured.



But having the Joint Chiefs, General Petraeus, General Stanley McChrystal and the Judge Advocate General’s Corp continue seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil is not acceptable. It disrespects everyone who ever wore the uniform. America and its citizens can handle the truth!



To the American Soldier – Thank you for your service and sacrifices for this country.



I am truly sorry to be in the position of having to speak so bluntly about an institution that I love.

Constantly Ignored by Congress, Americans Left Little Choice but to Shut Washington, D.C. Down!

The BOPAC Report:

Constantly Ignored by Congress, Americans Left Little Choice but to Shut Washington, D.C. Down!

(I would like to suggest a date – the day of the 2010 State of the Union Address)

Today I was listening to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program when one of his listeners shared an interesting idea that got my attention. The listener was a small business owner, 30 years in business, who was fed up with Congress not listening to the wishes of the American People. He was calling for all small business owners to fire half of their employees (for a few weeks?) and the resulting loss of tax withholdings and concurrent demands for unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc. by the fired workers would overwhelm the system.



Rush immediately recognized that this idea was actually the same idea that Obama and the left are employing, the Cloward-Piven strategy.



…”The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change….”



It is an interesting concept of turning a wholly leftist/fascist strategy for radical change back on the instigators. Naturally, the caller understood that his idea would involve substantial “short-term pain for long-term gain” and would require a lot of employers taking part to be effective.



What’s obvious is that Rush’s caller was basically expressing the extreme frustration that millions of Americans are feeling right now. How can ordinary citizens get the attention of Congress when they are taking the phone off the hook and locking their doors?



Even though it’s probably not ripe today, the Rush caller idea is simple, powerful, and definitely would get Washington and the media’s attention. However, I believe the pain to the “innocent” temporarily unemployed would be too much. It might be something to try next year during hunting season for hunters looking for some time to hunt and draw a check; or when school’s out for summer so they can go on family vacation. By summer, prior to the 2010 elections, both the to be laid off employees and millions of stressed employers could be eager to take part in such an act of political disobedience. I’m ready now but later might be better.



So what can be done now to get the attention of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Congress? What if for the days before and the night of the next Presidential State of the Union at the end of January another “Tea Party”/strike is organized to descend on Washington, D. C.? Trucks, RV’s, Cars, Motorcycles, Bikes, Strollers, Wheel Chairs, Veterans, Law Enforcement, Firefighters, 9/11 Families, Navy Seals’ families, College Students, High School Students, Elementary School Students, Lawyers, Judges, former AARP members, Ordinary Americans carrying bull-horns, cowbells, bag pipes, drums, and every other manner of noise making device imaginable coming to Congress to be HEARD! Wow!



Maybe, everyone could ask his or her Congressional Representative to boycott the 2010 State of the Union Address. (Are you there Representatives Bachmann and Wilson?)



Even though previous D.C. Tea Party demonstrations have had over a million participants, the media have found ways to ignore/ridicule/minimize them. What if 2 or 3 million Americans came to Congress to be heard – could the media ignore that? I don’t think so! What if the sound could be heard when Obama begins spinning his lies and misrepresentations – could the media ignore that? I don’t think so! What if traffic is tied up for days – could the media ignore that? I don’t think so!



Americans are upset and frustrated because they are not being listened to by Obama or the Congress. If fact even Blue Dog Democrats are frustrated. The level of frustration must be extremely high to cause a Freshman Democratic Representative from Alabama, Parker Griffith, to switch parties today.



Why are they so upset and frustrated? Let me count the ways:



Obama and Eric Holder are planning to have 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial in NYC! Polls show that 59% of Americans are opposed to this travesty. Congress has power to prevent it but again they choose not to listen the American people.



Obama is closing GITMO and bringing the terrorists to Illinois (within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant). When you ask Americans you find that 64% are opposed to bringing GITMO terrorists to America. Is Obama or Congress listening? No.



Three Navy Seals are being prosecuted for allegedly giving Islamic terrorist, Ahmed Hashim Abed, a fat lip during his capture. Abed was the mastermind of the brutal attack in Falluja in 2004 where 4 Blackwater security contractors were hung on a bridge and burned. Where is Obama and Congress? AWOL.



The Joint Chiefs of Staff are ignoring the very real possibility that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore not eligible to serve as President or Commander in Chief. Are they listening? No. Is Congress listening? No. All that is happening is that Obama has/is spending over 2 million dollars trying to keep his school records, long form birth certificate, bar application, college papers, etc. hidden.



Americans opposed to Obamacare are being ignored by Congress. The latest Quinnipiac poll show that “53 percent of voters disapprove of plans to make over the health-care system, with 36 percent in support.” Will Congress listen? No.



Shockingly, Reid and Pelosi’s Democrats are putting measures in the Healthcare legislation that tries to make parts of it not subject to repeal. How’s that for Congress not listening!



No matter what you believe about abortion, the vast majority of Americans (72%) recognize that it is wrong to force taxpayer who believe abortion is wrong to fund abortions. Will Congress listen? No.



The majority of American small business owners (66 against/24 for) and the public (53 against/37 for) are against Cap and Trade legislation. Is the Congress listening? No.



Americans, who keep their own budgets balanced, expect Obama and Congress to keep America’s budgets balanced! Do they listen? No.



And there’s Inspector General Walpin’s firing, Obama bowing to every world leader he can find, Obama photo ops with our returning war dead, ACORN, SEIU, Larry Sinclair, attacks of FOX, Obama’s boot licking media, Cambridge Police “acted stupid”, coming attacks on the Second Amendment, not showing proper respect when our soldiers were slaughtered by a terrorist at Ft. Hood, etc., etc., etc. It never ends.



Americans have been trying hard to have their voices heard vis-à-vis Tea Parties nationwide. Were they heard? No. They were ridiculed and vilified by Obama, Gibbs, Pelosi, many Members of Congress and the mainstream media.



Everyday, more Americans are waking up.



It is time to start saying ENOUGH a little more loudly.