Obamanomics – Natural Born Citizen – Gov. Jindal – Glenn Beck Hypocrisy – Commander Kerchner – Iran – Israel – Anti-Missile Systems – The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report

Natural Born Citizen and Glenn Beck -

 

Just like Obama is not Malcolm X - Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen"! Obama may look like Malcolm X and Obama may be a "Citizen"; but being a "Citizen" does not necessarily mean that Obama is a "Natural Born Citizen"! Joint Chiefs of Staff’s new mottos: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil & Don’t rock the boat!

Commander Kerchner has written Glenn Beck a second letter asking him to get involved the ‘natural born citizen’ issue.  I’ve written Glenn a couple of open letters and it appears that Mr. Beck has no intention to look into Obama’s eligibility to be President. 

I’ve taken a little different approach recently by pulling a Pelosi and pole vaulting over Obama to get a media discussion started regarding Gov. Jindal’s eligibility to serve as President.  Gov. Jindal is not a ‘natural born citizen’ either. 

I do wish that Gov. Jindal would man up and address his ineligibility to serve.

How could the media ignore a Jindal press conference? 

Feel free to send Gov. Jindal either of my last three articles:

http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=785:the-2010-democratic-birther-strategy-media-bias-liberty-and-the-jindal-response&catid=94:breaking-news&Itemid=156

http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=508:obama-eligibility-dear-talk-radio&catid=71:zach-jones&Itemid=124

http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=447:trumping-political-and-judicial-courage-&catid=71:zach-jones&Itemid=124

From the blog of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. -

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Glenn … Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck from Commander Kerchner

For Immediate Release — 1 February 2010

Glenn … Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck

By: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Posted: 1 February 2010 at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Dear Glenn Beck :

Are you listening to the People? Are you listening to the members of your “912 Project” who are trying to talk to you on air about the “elephant in the room” of American political discussion and legal question about the 2008 election. Or are you still telling your call screeners to block their calls and/or moderate them out of your chat rooms just like the members of Congress do? Congress is not listening to the People. The election in Massachusetts showed you the results of what happens when the elected officials do not listen to the People. Are you not listening to the People anymore either or just selectively listening? The questions are not the questions of a fringe percentage of the people. See this recent survey: http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=5697

A very large percentage, probably 75%+, of the “912 Project” folks and “Tea Party” folks believe that Obama is NOT constitutionally eligible to be the President or certainly at least want the matter fully and thoroughly discussed in public and investigated by the courts and Obama’s hidden and sealed early life original paper records unsealed and revealed. Photoshop’d digital images on the internet are legal proof of nothing. And then there is the issue for the 1961 newspaper ads you tout as infallible proof. They were not placed directly by family members but instead generated by the Hawaiian Health Department upon any birth registration in their system no matter what the source. Have you heard of the GIGO effect for birth registration systems. Falsified birth registration records in yields false record reports in Hawaiian newspapers out. This was likely done by the grandmother to get her newborn grandson U.S. citizenship, despite of where he might have really been born. Births could be registered with a mail-in form filled out by one family member for “at home” births. No one back then in Hawaii checked the credibility of the facts placed on that form. No one at the time was thinking 45 years into the future that this child might someday be a candidate for President and thus someone would question and check the underlying credibility of the facts on the mail-in form. Citizenship is the goal of any falsified birth registration in the U.S. Simple as that. Listen to this discussion on the Bill Cunningham radio show.

Glenn, are you giving these people who have supported you a voice? Or are you silencing their voices from getting on the air? If you don’t believe me, take a survey of them. …Continue Reading

I like Glenn Beck but the hypocrisy involved with saying ‘question with boldness’ and then ridiculing those who question Obama’s eligibility makes me believe that Glenn may be becoming half full of crap.

Like you Glenn but instead of ridiculing those questioning Obama's eligibility - question Jindal's eligibility. Take an enema and come back to the light!

Obama’s Foreign Policy –

 

Hillary's 3am Call vis-a-vis the Omnipresent Teleprompter to Obama!

Obama supported Chavez supporter/follower Zelaya during the Honduras crisis and ignored the opposition protesters in Iran when Ahmadinejad stole the election.  Is the deployment and sales of arms to Iran’s neighbors merely an attempt to buy time and keep Israel from attacking Iran?  Buy time to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? 

…The moves, which include the sales of anti-missile systems to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, are designed to deter Iran from launching attacks against its Sunni Muslim neighbors and to send a message to Israel that a preemptive strike against Iran is unnecessary….

From FOX:

U.S. Missile Shield in Gulf Ups Ante With Iran

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran rose Monday after the Obama Administration quietly increased the capability of land and sea-based missile defenses in several Gulf nations to protect American allies.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran rose Monday after the Obama Administration quietly increased the capability of land and sea-based missile defenses in several Gulf nations to protect American allies against a potential Iranian strike.

Administration officials said over the weekend that the U.S. was speeding up arms sales to a number of Gulf Arab states and that it had also deployed warships capable of knocking down hostile missiles in flight to the region.

The moves, which include the sales of anti-missile systems to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, are designed to deter Iran from launching attacks against its Sunni Muslim neighbors and to send a message to Israel that a preemptive strike against Iran is unnecessary.

The deployments come as President Obama enters a new phase in efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program after the failure of a diplomatic offensive….Continue Reading

Obama’s Iranian Policy?

 

Teleprompter holds Whitehouse Protocol Classes. Obama preparing for bow to Iran!

Unlike Obama, I take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word and will be paying attention on February 11^th.

CNN — Two top Iranian opposition leaders have called on supporters to protest on February 11, the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, an opposition Web site reported.

According to The Green Way Web site, a meeting took place Saturday between opposition leaders Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Moussavi at Karroubi’s home.

They discussed the two executions that happened last week and the cases of 16 protesters who went on trial Saturday, the site reported.

“The widespread arrests of political activists and university students, the silencing of the media, and the forced confessions of prisoners are against the principles of Islam and the constitution of Iran,” the leaders said in a statement.

They also called for people to take to the streets on February 11 to demand their rights back as citizens of Iran, The Green Way reported.

Meanwhile, state-run Press TV quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday as saying that the nation will deliver a harsh blow to “global arrogance” on February 11.

Press TV offered no details on or explanation of the statement….Continue Reading

 

Obamanomics –

Obamanomics - It's a Crap Shoot! Spending Freeze? Not hardly!

 

This quote sums it up:

…. When the deficit is that size and you want to cut it meaningfully, you have to do more…

Analysts View: 2010 budget deficit to hit new record

7:43am EST

NEW YORK/LONDON (Reuters) – Following are analysts’ comments after President Barack Obama on Monday projected in his budget for the fiscal year to September 30, 2011 the budget deficit would soar to a fresh record of $1.56 trillion in 2010.

LATEST COMMENTS

ANDRE BAKHOS, PRESIDENT, PRINCETON FINANCIAL GROUP, NORTH

BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY

“We’re talking about a record budget with record deficits. In it we have I believe $100 billion stimulus on top of what’s already been approved in the past, and it’s going to be interesting to see how that plays up.

“I don’t believe it’s going to make a (stock) market impact. People are aware of the deficit and the record budget. I don’t think the average investor will trade on the back of that.”

PETER BOOCKVAR, EQUITY STRATEGIST, MILLER TABAK & CO., NEW

YORK:

“I don’t think there is anything out there that is job creating and I don’t have much confidence that some of the spending cuts will actually happen.

“I would rather come in today and focus on fundamental earnings rather than what the government’s budget deficit is going to be. It’s going to be large, it’s going to be big and that’s what’s the most disappointing thing and this doesn’t change that.”

MARC OSTWALD, CURRENCY, RATES STRATEGIST, MONUMENT

SECURITIES, LONDON:

“When the deficit is that size and you want to cut it meaningfully, you have to do more….Continue Reading

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

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?

Trumping Political and Judicial Courage – Did Hope for Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal? The BOPAC Report

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…

Obama's New Commander-In-Chief Uniform to Battle Low Morale in Military! Will Obama wear it to Navy Seals Prosecution?