A week or so ago, you asked your listeners to get involved and pay attention to what the Obama Administration, politicians and groups like ACORN are attempting to do to America. You indicated that your researchers are working on big project and that you need your listeners to be your eyes and ears. You pointed out that we should not try to follow everything, given the enormity of it all; but to find something we are knowledgeable and passionate about to dig into. Suggestions were made that people might focus on the Second Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Free Speech, ACORN, eugenics, trans-nationalism, or simply just pick one of Obama’s Czars to research and follow in the news.
I certainly agree that having a substantial number of ordinary Americans paying attention to what’s going on in Congress is vital if we are to survive as a vibrant, growing, transparent and accountable society. I applaud your efforts in this regard.
However, you now appear to be deciding for your listeners which parts of the Constitution are important and which are not. Yesterday, one segment of the Glenn Beck Show dealt with the topic of how the Obama Administration and Democratic leadership are adopting tactics from Saul Alinsky’s
“Rules for Radicals” to villanize and demoralize ordinary American citizens asking questions of their Representatives in town hall meetings. How they are attempting to label people asking questions about Obama’s policies as the “mob”, right-wingers, racists, etc.
During that segment, you completely shocked and disappointed me. A woman asking a question about Obama’s birth certificate appeared on screen and you rolled your eyes and referred to her as that “idiot…” I had instant pain in the pit of my stomach, realizing that Saul Alinsky’s rules are now fully integrated into our society if Glenn Beck automatically denigrates a woman “trying to ask a legitimate question” because it doesn’t fit his game plan. I am not trying to offend you, but don’t you understand that such a statement from you is hypocritical, especially in a segment about ridicule?
I use the phrase that she was “trying to ask a legitimate question” because it is becoming more and more clear that you and many others in the media have succumb to the misinformation regarding this issue. In order for Mr. Obama to legitimately serve as President of the United States, he must be a “natural born citizen”. The Constitutional requirement calling for a “natural born citizen” requires a higher level of citizenship (implying a higher level of allegiance to the United States and her Constitution) to serve; as opposed to what is commonly referred to as being a basic “citizen” of the United States. (Natural Born Citizen = Citizen +Exclusive, Uncompromised Allegiance)
Many have written on this topic and it is abundantly clear that
unresolved questions remain as to who can be a “natural born citizen”.
Supreme Court decisions indicate that there are real differences between citizens who can “only be classified as citizens” and those citizens who can “also (additionally) be classified as natural born citizens”. (“Natural Born Citizen” is a subset of “Citizen”) These differences pertain to allegiances that arise by virtue of where the person was born and/or the allegiances that arise because of his or her parents’ foreign allegiances (multiple citizenships/application of foreign law). Therefore, Obama could have been born in Hawaii and still not be a “natural born citizen” because of the foreign allegiances of his father. (As such, “birther” is a misnomer and is used to demean.)
Reasonable people can disagree where the lines of demarcation should be drawn regarding who can be a “natural born citizen”; and they do. However, many in the media who are demonizing, vilifying, and attempting to demoralize those who say that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution remains important are simply using obfuscation and misrepresentation to play on the emotions of the uninformed. If changes in the historic/judicial interpretation of the Constitution are to be made, specifically regarding Article II, Section 1; they must be made by the Court based upon reasoned arguments and evidence as to what the framers of the Constitution intended. How to interpret and when to enforce our Constitution’s provisions should not be based on the whims and emotions of the media and politicians.
Having watched your segment about
Sun Tzu and The Art of War, I do realize that you may tactically want the focus to be on Obama’s outrageous policies. Maybe you are thinking that we should be willing to lose the “birther” battle in order to win the bigger war to restore America. I respectfully disagree with your strategy. It is equally important that the Constitution not be trampled upon to serve “an end justifies the means” argument. Notwithstanding my objection, if you do wish to continue neglecting the Article II, Section 1 issue, can’t you refrain from pulling a “Saul Alinsky” against those of us who see this as an important matter? Calling people derogatory names is not really necessary for your purposes and can only cost you viewers/listeners.
A couple of days ago, you halfway asked a question on your show:
Answer - Absolutely, we will take him out of office. It’s not okay to sweep violations of the Constitution of the United States under the rug. It’s not mean spirited, racist, unfair, or as dangerous as you make it out to be to do what’s right. It’s more dangerous to ignore the issue and let Obama continue trying to transform America into a socialist nation of oppressed sheep.
“…not on the fringes…”This is not a fringe issue. Glenn, how can a Constitutional issue about a person’s eligibility to serve as President be a fringe issue? It is a legitimate issue of Obama’s own making by his Nixonest guarding of records normally presented for public review, coupled with direct and circumstantial evidence pointing towards ineligibility that demands judicial review. In a court of law, the “facts” as revealed by complete and proper “discovery” should be carefully scrutinized to establish (and/or affirm) the authority of person sitting in the Oval Office and commanding our military. This is a foundational issue regarding the foundation of Obama’s power. It is being characterized as a fringe issue because it also threatens the media’s credibility and they want it crushed.
This whole thing reminds me of the line in A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth”. Only this time, the statement is being directed to the American people. I’m sure the American people can handle the truth. That’s all they ever ask for and rarely receive. What makes Americans angry is when politicians and the media decide for them what they can and can’t handle.
Thank you for all you do for America Mr. Beck! I will keep watching, but maybe not today. Take care.
Your Sincere Supporter
Zach
Zach Jones publishes “The BOPAC Report” & Larry Sinclair’s Allegations” – ZachJonesIsHome. Zach can be reached at:
zachjoneswillbe@gmail.com
