What a wonderfully rousing speech Glenn Beck gave at CPAC last night.  I would have loved to be there.  Yet while all that common sense patriotic conservative opinion was being tossed around, I couldn't help but feel that this guy, the self made man, the good writer, the one who espouses strick adherence to and rediscovery of our Constitution has committed a grave error recently.  

 

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, or it is not.  If it is, then there is nothing wrong with expecting those in power to adhere to it's principles and stick to it's limitations.  The portion of the Constitution that addresses presidential eligibility is being ignored by most in media, and because the issue is so constantly mischaracterized, most people don't understand the issue.

 

Beck didn't avoid the issue, doesn't ignore it.  Rather, he ridiculed it.  He mischaracterized the real issue, and ridiculed it.  Polls have shown that something like 65% of the population believes Obama isn't eligible.  Many believe they need to see his birth certificate.  Many constantly call for that to be released.  

 

In fact, it's not the birth certificate that is the issue at all.  The issue is the Constitution itself.  To qualify, one must be 35, living in the country for 14 years, and be a "natural born citizen."  Even the "fightthesmears.com" website of Obama's campaign calls him a native born citizen.  That is not the proper qualification, and Obama himself knows this.  To be "natural born" one must be born in the country of citizen parents.  His parents were not both citizens.  Indeed, his father was at the time of his birth, a British subject.  

 

I don't care who claims he was born in Kenya, who claims he gave up citizenship to become Indonesian, who claims he hasn't released his birth certificate.

 

I care that he is not eligible because his father was not a citizen.  

 

Courts have claimed we the people have no "standing" to insist on these eligibility requirements be upheld.  But the courts are not finished with this subject.  I pray that some judge will rediscover the Constitution, and do the right thing.  

birthers n truthers

Any time someone gets accused of being a "truther" or a "birther" they are immediately tossed into the dung heap of past tense political influence.  While the left attacks the "birthers" as being crazy, the right attacks the "truthers" for the same reason.  Alinsky tactics aren't exclusively something used by the "progressive leftists" at all.  While it's wise of the right wing to recognize what is happening to them when the progressives laugh at them, it's also clear they use the same tactic of ridicule.   

At no time should the people not hold their government accountable or challenge when they feel something is not right.  I don't happen to buy into the theory that our government planned 9/11.  But it's not honest to place all "truthers" in the category that thinks that.  If one questions the authorities at all, and thinks the questions are valid, one is labeled "truther" and written off as a quack.

Yet lets not forget there was the Waco incident,  Ruby Ridge incident, Oklahoma City bombing, Foster death, TWA800, and a myriad of other incidents about which the government has not been good at reporting what actually happened.  Indeed, for all these incidents, facts are still hidden. 

 

Is it reasonable to question the governments actions in all these cases?  Or is it only reasonable if media types who don't want to lose out on their invitations, their interviews, their favored status within their media community say so? 

Van Jones, like many others named as advisors in the Obama administration, should have been let go not because he signed a petition or questioned the truthfulness of government released reports, but because of his radical progressive leanings. 

Questing for the truth is not a vice.  It is, indeed, a virtue.  The First Amendment exists so that people can do just that.  We must hold our leaders accountable, and when they tell blatant, obvious lies and obfuscate and obscure vital information in pursuit of political agendas, we must call them on it.  As it is, we get such crap as "we can spend our way out of a recession" and adding millions to the welfare rolls will "lower the deficit." 

 

Well, duh.  Just because administration spokesmen say something doesn't make it truth.  I've watched enough hearings, and read enough official reports to know a whitewash when I seen one. 

 

"Truthers" are usually people who are just awakening to the political gamesmanship and ploys used by politicians.  They are labeled "conspiracy theorists" as though the incidents that concern them are imaginary.  If they attempt to actively participate in the discussion of events today, they are immediately discounted and ignored.  Yet in reality, if more people had quested for truth before the election of 2008, they might have realized and understood what they would be getting as "change" with an Obama administration.  They might have quested for the truth of his eligibility beforehand, and held those responsible for approving his candidacy to account. 

When Glenn Beck ridicules Medina, he's stifling free speech.  She was honest.  She tried to not answer. She could have lied.  But then, perhaps this is one of the reasons politicians have a reputation for lying. 

They must in order to satisfy those who set themselves up as judges and influence voters using ridicule.