Order of the Ephors – Can the Republic be saved?

As the American people witness the Republican presidential primaries unfolding, many are puzzled by the uncharacteristic bitterness of the rhetoric.  Rarely have Republican candidates violated Ronald Reagan’s 11^th Commandment… thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican… with the same level of rancor.  But the bitter exchanges are not gratuitous; there is a good reason for them.

Although few Americans would be able to stand and deliver an extemporaneous speech on the social and economic difficulties facing our nation, most Americans understand instinctively that our country cannot long survive with a national debt equal to or greater than our total annual GDP.  They understand that it is Barack Obama, a man who would be out of his depth as leader of a Boy Scout troop, let alone the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, who has brought us to the edge of an abyss from which there may be no recovery.

That being the case, it is easy to see how the level of rancor displayed in the Republican debates is directly proportional to the danger posed by Barack Obama and the Democrat majority in the Senate.  The imperative of ridding the nation of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and a Democratic majority in the Senate is so great that it produces uncharacteristic passion among the most staid and dignified Republicans, each vying for the chance to be the “Exterminator-in-Chief.”

What is most disconcerting to conservatives is that, until the South Carolina primary, they’ve had to contend with Mitt Romney, another in a long line of Republican moderates, as frontrunner for the 2012 nomination.  Conservatives understand instinctively that the country cannot afford yet another Republican moderate in the White House.  Republicans must nominate a candidate who can not only defeat Obama in a landslide, but who, through sheer determination and strength of personality, can reverse the direction in which the nation is now headed and confront head-on the Democratic onslaught that is sure to come.

What the nation needs in these perilous times is not another “Poodle,” in the style of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, but a “Pit Bull” in the style of the “Last Lion of Great Britain,” Winston Churchill.  The only man in the Republican field who fits that description is former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Governor Romney went into the 2012 Iowa caucuses as the frontrunner, having campaigned for the presidency non-stop since February 13, 2007, nearly 5 full years.  Speaker Gingrich entered the race on May 11, 2011, just over 8 months ago.   However, a week or ten days before the Iowa caucuses, after Gingrich had catapulted into frontrunner status on the strength of his performance in the pre-Iowa debates, the Romney forces panicked.  In their effort to derail what appeared to be the genesis of a Gingrich runaway, they produced an unprecedented number of negative campaign ads, viciously attacking Gingrich.

As Gingrich saw his popularity waning because of Romney’s negative campaigning, he made the first major strategic error of his campaign.  Instead of sticking with the strategy that brought him quickly through the ranks to frontrunner status… i.e. speaking only positively of his Republican opponents while relentlessly attacking Barack Obama… he responded “in kind” to the negative Romney ad campaign.

What he and his advisors apparently failed to consider was that, with a large store of “good guy, nice guy” currency, Mitt Romney could engage in a great deal of negative campaigning without suffering self-inflicted wounds.  Gingrich, on the other hand, because of his reputation as a tough infighter during the Clinton era, a man who was said to have so much “baggage” that the names Gingrich and Samsonite became almost synonymous, went into the Iowa contest with little or no store of “good guy, nice guy” currency.

In other words, while Romney could get away with saying almost anything he wanted to say about Newt, the voting public would never allow Gingrich the same latitude.  Instead of going negative, Gingrich would have been well-advised to simply look back over his shoulder, swat at Romney like a pesky fly, and double-down on his attacks on Obama.

Now, in the wake of Gingrich’s spectacular win in South Carolina, the first primary event that is truly reflective of the heart and soul of the larger Republican Party, we can begin to see into the future.  This in spite of the fact that few national pundits… including those on the Fox News network… appear to have the slightest understanding of Mitt Romney’s inability to secure the Republican nomination after 5 full years of campaigning.  They appear totally out of touch with the reality that Romney cannot rise above the 25-30% support level because, a) he is a moderate running in a party that is at least 80% conservative, b) rank-and-file Republicans are fed up with the lukewarm leadership they’ve received from moderates such as Bush (41), Bush (43), and John McCain, and c) Republicans and independents alike are terrified of a second Obama term.

Nor are they able to explain why establishment Republicans and the mainstream media would stoop to employ the most desperate life-or-death tactics… such as airing the Marianne Gingrich interview… to prevent a conservative Republican from coming out of South Carolina a winner.  They appear not to understand that, having engineered the nomination of essentially every GOP candidate for the past century, with the exception of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, the Republican “establishment” is unaccustomed to having their wishes ignored.

George H.W. Bush was a moderate.  He campaigned against Reagan’s supply-side economics… the economic policies that allowed a Republican House and Senate to produce four consecutive balanced budgets… calling Reagan’s economic proposals “voodoo economics.”  Bob Dole was a conservative, but a candidate who was nominated in 1996 by “establishment” Republicans on nothing more than the strength of his claim that it was “his turn.”  As a weak campaigner he had no chance of defeating Bill Clinton.

George W. Bush, brutalized by Democrats and the mainstream media from his first day in office,  seemed convinced that his role in U.S. history was to prove that he could “take a punch.”  He seemed not to understand that each time he was verbally assaulted, without ever launching a counterattack, the rank-and-file of the Republican Party felt the pain of the attacks more than he did.

And finally, John McCain was, if anything, an even worse candidate than Bob Dole.  It is easy to understand how he could tell a crowd in a recent “foot-in-mouth” appearance with Mitt Romney that “Barack Obama would turn the country around.”  It is also easy to understand the frustration that Sarah Palin, a true fighter for the cause, must have felt as the McCain staff regularly tied her hands and prevented her from waging an effective campaign against the Obama-Biden forces.  Now, as the “titular head” of the Republican Party, McCain provides no leadership whatsoever.

Conservative Republicans now feel as though they’ve given the Republican “establishment” more than enough opportunities to govern the country effectively.  All have failed and it’s now time for conservatives to reestablish ownership of their party.

In attempting to explain away the results of the South Carolina primary, Romney spokesmen make yet another strategic error, attempting to paint Newt Gingrich not as a chief executive type, but as a legislator.  In his appearance on Meet the Press, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie responded to a David Gregory question by saying that, “The last thing the country needs is to have another legislator in the White House.  That’s what we have now.”

Yes, Barack Obama was a legislator… a very poor legislator, having voted “present” on at least 129 occasions when he found it either impossible or politically dangerous to reach a decision that might later prove difficult to explain.  His performance in the Oval Office, day-in, day-out, proves that he has little or no executive ability.

Gingrich, on the other hand, has demonstrated strong executive ability throughout his political career.  It was his tendency to act in an autocratic manner during his years as Speaker, as opposed to being the leader of 435 elected officials, each with his/her own oversized ego, that got him into trouble with the Democratic minority and his own House caucus.  Mitt Romney and his surrogates make a major error when they attempt to write Gingrich off as a mere “legislator.”  His worst critics, including members of his own party, complain that he does not work well in a collegial atmosphere; he is far better suited to an executive role.

Bush (41), Bush (43), and McCain were all Poodles engaged in a life-or-death struggle against Democratic Pit Bulls.  Among the current crop of GOP candidates, Mitt Romney is yet another Poodle; Rick Santorum is a yapping Terrier whose bark is worse than his bite; and Ron Paul is a Bulldog/Chihuahua mix.  The only Pit Bull in the race is Newt Gingrich.

Unlike John McCain, who treated Obama as if he was nothing more than a misguided little brother, the 2012 Republican candidate will have to take off the gloves with him.  It is a task that only a Pit Bull can handle.  None of our Poodles could ever get the job done.

On November 2, 2010, the people of Oklahoma were asked to decide a very important question.  They were asked to decide whether or not the state’s courts should be directed to rely solely on federal and state law, or whether other bodies of law… international law, laws of other nations, or Sharia law… could also be used.  State Question 755, amending Article 7, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution, declared that, “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.  Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

When all the votes were counted, 695,650 Oklahomans (70.08%) voted to live under existing federal and state law, while 296,944 voters (29.92%)… liberal Democrats, Muslims, deceased persons, and a few trouble-makers who sneaked across the border from Texas and Arkansas… voted to live under whatever legal code happened to be the “flavor of the day.”

Just two days later, on November 4, local Muslims filed suit in federal court, seeking to block implementation of the measure.  The suit was filed by Muneer Awad (of the Oklahoma Awads), executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, who expressed the view that the people of Oklahoma had no right to decide the parameters of the constitution under which they live and that the amendment, approved by 70.08% of the Oklahoma electorate, was… unconstitutional.  Awad argued that the amendment tramples the “free exercise” rights of a disfavored minority faith (it does not), restricts the ability of he and his fellow Muslims to execute valid wills (it does not), and prohibits equal access to the judicial system (it does not).

The lawsuit further asserted that the Oklahoma amendment “undercuts a central concern of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, sending an unmistakable message that Muslims are religious and political outsiders.”  If Muslims are religious and political outsiders, as Awad suggests, there must be a reason.  Let’s look at the record.

On November 15, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI called on all Muslim countries to protect Christians living among them.  He also called upon Christians and Muslims to show mutual respect toward each other.  Since that date, the Pope has issued numerous appeals for reciprocity, calling upon Muslims to respect the right of Christians to worship freely throughout the Muslim world, just as Muslims enjoy religious freedom in majority Christian nations.  So what impact has the Pope had on slowing the progress of Islamic jihad?

In a report published on November 26, 2010, Khaled Abu Toameh, West Bank and Gaza correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, described recent incidents of genocide against Middle East Christians.  The report tells us that, “Christians in Arab countries are no longer being persecuted; they are now being slaughtered and driven out of their homes and lands.”

On Christmas Day, 2011, a radical Islamist group calling itself Boko Haram… which translates to “Western education is a sin”… bombed a Christian church in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, killing 43 and injuring many more.  The Jewish World Review reports that a Boko Haram leader, Abdul Qaqa, gave Christians in northern Nigeria three days to pack up and leave the country.

In 2010, 52 Catholics were slaughtered at a church in Baghdad.  The Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk is quoted as saying that 57 Christian churches in Iraq have been attacked since 2003.  More than 900 Christians have been killed and more than 6,000 wounded.  In April 2011, 1,000 Christians were slaughtered by Muslim troops in Ivory Coast.  And in October 2011, in Egypt, 24 Coptic Christians were killed and more than 200 were wounded by radical Islamists.

These are but a few examples of the atrocities suffered by Christians in the Muslim world.  And while they represent an indescribable horror for those directly affected, they may also represent a long overdue and much needed wake-up call for the non-Muslim world if they help us to finally see Islam for what it is… and what it is not.  Hopefully, acts of genocide against Christians in Muslim nations will finally serve to convince westerners that Islam and Christianity cannot coexist, side-by-side, unless Christians yield to the demands of radical Islam.

Those who worry that restrictions on Sharia Law… such as Oklahoma SQ 755… may conflict with 1^st Amendment rights, must understand that the 1^st Amendment prohibits the “establishment of a religion.”  Islam is not a “religion” as we in the West understand the meaning of the term and it cannot be viewed as such.  It is far more than that; it is a social, political, legal, military, and economic system with a spiritual component.

As such, it is governed by and may come into conflict with Articles I, II, III, and IV of the U.S. Constitution, and at least 14 of the 27 amendments.  In fact, as an invading force that attempts to impose its 7^th century values on an enlightened 21^st century world, in any way possible, violent or non-violent, there is very little in Islam that would not conflict with the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.  Without its religious component, which Muslims conveniently hide behind when claiming 1^st Amendment protections, Islam would be just another hate group, a foreign political insurgency that must be defeated, no matter what the cost.

We in the United States have developed social, political, and economic institutions that are the envy of the entire world, and Islam is the last place we would look for guidance in perfecting our Western civilization.  No help is wanted, or needed, thank you very much.

Like most Europeans of the post-World War II era, many Americans have succumbed to the fiction that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that worldwide jihad is merely a pipedream of the radical few.  However, the truth lies elsewhere.  As one Muslim caller to a radio talk show put it, “The liberal (peace-loving) Muslims are on the bus… but the crazies are driving the bus.”  Only when so-called “moderate” Muslims show a bit of courage by unmasking the radicals in their midst will any sort of accommodation be possible.  Until then, Muslims will increasingly be seen as a “disfavored minority faith,” as Mr. Awad refers to them.

In Islamic countries, Christians and Jews are prohibited from practicing their religion freely and openly.  Fair enough.  So I’ll pledge to accept their petty little demands on the same day that Christians, Jews, and everyone else are allowed complete religious freedom in all of the nations of the Islamic world, but not before.  The litmus test for Islam as a “religion of peace” will be the day when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and all other non-Muslims are free to visit Mecca; and when churches, temples, and synagogues can be built throughout the Muslim world.  Until then, Islam must be viewed, not as the world’s largest religious denomination, but as a primitive alien culture that has not evolved appreciably beyond its seventh-century roots.

Complete reciprocity is the standard that must be met… nothing more, nothing less.

On November 30, 2010, Federal District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down a decision in the Oklahoma SQ 755 case, barring the Oklahoma State Election Board from certifying the results of the election until she could prepare a final ruling.

Because the people of Oklahoma have made “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Awad suit is totally without merit.  To the contrary, the amendment approved on November 2 served only to reinforce the 1^st Amendment in that, like it or not, it prohibits the “establishment of religion” for a small minority of Oklahoma citizens.  As might be expected, Judge Miles-LaGrange got it exactly backwards.  (Appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1994, Judge Miles-LaGrange provides just one more horrible example of why we cannot trust Democrat presidents to appoint capable and competent judges to the federal bench.)

Finally, on January 11, 2012, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver agreed with Judge Miles-LaGrange, upholding her injunction against the implementation of Oklahoma SQ 755.  The case now goes back to federal court in Oklahoma City for a decision on the question of constitutionality.

Depending on the outcome of the trial in Oklahoma City, and the anticipated appeal to the 10^th Circuit, the people of Oklahoma may have to play the game a bit longer by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But if by some chance a majority of justices would find some merit in the lower court decisions, striking down State Question 755, then it will become necessary for Oklahoma to stand on its 10^th Amendment rights by engaging in nullification.  Governor Fallin and Attorney General Pruitt will have to inform the federal courts that the people of Oklahoma are sovereign and that they have spoken.  State Question 755 will become part of the Oklahoma constitution and it will be enforced, the opinion of the federal courts notwithstanding.

In a recent interview, a Muslim in Bahrain admitted to having shot his sister in the head four times because she had been forcibly raped.  Although she was the victim of a brutal assault, her violation had brought shame upon her family.  As the brother explained, in Islam, a woman who has been violated is much like a broken dinner plate that must be thrown away; she is no longer of any use and it’s best to discard her so that she can bring no further shame to the family.

It’s time that Mr. Awad and all of his Muslim friends understood that, in Oklahoma, all human lives are valued equally, regardless of gender, and that our women are not like “dinner plates.”  And if he and his CAIR associates don’t like the way we do things; if they refuse to recognize that Sharia law is incompatible with Oklahoma values, then we have a few suggestions for them… and we’ll give them more than three days to pack up and leave; we’ll give them at least a week.

January 3, 2012 will be long remembered as a historical landmark by true American patriots.  It is the day on which The Hon. Michael M. Malihi, Deputy Chief Judge of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, issued a ruling denying Barack Obama’s motion to dismiss four cases alleging that he is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.  The headlines screamed, “Obama’s Motion Denied, He Must Prove His Qualifications.”

Since 2008, nearly 90 state and federal court cases have been filed, challenging Obama’s qualifications to serve as President of the United States.  None have been successful.  However, at least one of the cases now proceeding through the Georgia courts… David P. Welden v. Barack Obama… is different in that it challenges Obama at his weakest point, his inability to qualify as a “natural born Citizen.”

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states as follows: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

In his challenge, filed with Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp on November 15, 2011, Welden asserts the following:

“Pursuant to O.C.G.A. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated) §21-2-5, I hereby challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to appear on the March 6 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot and/or on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot for President of the United States.”

Welden then proceeds to outline five specific allegations against Obama:

The official state certified birth certificate proffered by Barack Obama contains a factual inconsistency and other anomalies that calls into question the veracity of the rest of theinformation contained within said document.

Welden is correct in his assertion that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by Obama on April 27, 2011 contains a “factual inconsistency” and raises more questions than it answers.  For example, Obama claims to have been born on August 4, 1961.  The COLB released by Obama was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health on August 8, 2011 and contains the registration number 61 10641.  However, the mother of the Nordyke twins, Susan and Gretchen, born at the same hospital on August 5, 1961, has produced certificates bearing registration numbers 61 10637 and 61 10638, respectively.  The birth certificates of the Nordyke twins were not registered with the Hawaii Department of Health until August 11, 1961, three days after Obama’s COLB was registered.  Numerous forensic experts have evaluated the Obama COLB and have found conclusively that it is nothing more than a poorly-constructed forgery.

2. Barack Obama has not adequately proven that he was born a natural born citizen of the United States.Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent [Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)] the term “natural born Citizen” is defined as follows: “…(A)ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...”

The precedent established under Minor v. Happersett has not been altered or amended in the 137 years since it was handed down.  It is established law and it applies to Barack Obama just as it does to every other citizen.

3. Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack Obama, Sr., was never a citizen of the United States and, at the time of his son’s birth, was not a permanent resident of the United States.  Consequently, Barack Obama was born to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident.

In1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In order for Barack Obama to qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, it is necessary that both parents must have been U.S. citizens, either native born or naturalized, at the time of his birth.  Obama’s father returned to his native Kenya in July 1964.

In recent decades, the “natural born Citizen” status of three potential presidential candidates has been questioned.  In 1968, former Michigan governor George W. Romney, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.  In November 2003, shortly after becoming Governor of California, famed movie actor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed an interest in one day seeking the U.S. presidency.  Finally, in 2008, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was the Republican candidate for president.  The “natural born” status of all three was questioned.

Although Romney was born in Chihuahua State, Mexico, and McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, both men were found to be “natural born” U.S. citizens because, in both instances, both parents were U.S. citizens.  However, speculation regarding Schwarzenegger’s ambitions was short-lived.  Not only was he born in Austria, both of his parents held Austrian citizenship at the time of his birth.  For these reasons he could not meet the “natural born Citizen” standard.

4. By his own admission, and under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and from 1963 until at least 1984 was a citizen of the Republic of Kenya.
   

Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship by descent from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act (Barack Obama, Jr.) shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father (Obama, Sr.) is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

Obama lost his dual US-British citizenship on December 12, 1963, the day on which Kenya won its independence from Great Britain.  However, Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the new Kenyan Constitution provided as follows: “(1)  Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11^th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12^th December 1963…  (2)  Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11^th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12^th December, 1963.”

Obama held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963 until August 4, 1984, his 23^rd birthday.  However, he became a Kenyan “citizen by birth” on August 4, 2010, the day on which Kenya adopted a revised constitution.  Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: “A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).”

What this tells us is that, since August 4, 2010, as Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a “citizen by birth” of Kenya, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.

5. Due to his dual citizenship with the United Kingdom and with Kenya, Barack Obama was born with dual allegiances to foreign nations other than the United States of America.

The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:

“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.   Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.  Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it… because of the problems it may cause.  Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law…  However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.  They are required to obey the laws of both countries…”  

It is incomprehensible that any person who holds, or has held, allegiance to any foreign sovereignty should be allowed to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.  It is precisely why the Founding Fathers limited access to the U.S. presidency to those who are “natural born” citizens of the United States.

The Administrative Court in Atlanta has no choice but to find that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States and must remove his name from the March 6, 2012 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot, and from the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot in the State of Georgia.