Bill Salier, who ran unsuccessfully for the right to challenge U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin in 2002 and who remains an influential voice in conservative politics, said Vander Plaats had all the momentum he needed after last April’s Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. But his inability to articulate positions on other issues of importance to Iowans has surrendered that momentum to Branstad.

Bill Salier

“It’s Branstad’s race to win,” he said, adding: “You’re on the 10 yard line. Just don’t fumble the ball.”

Vander Plaats’ focus on the marriage issue has caused many voters, as well as the media, to pigeon hole him as a one-issue candidate, Salier said. It has also allowed Branstad to avoid talking about his record and instead campaign “based on nostalgia and ‘things were better back then.’”

“If he continues to do that he will be successful, but he can only do that if the other campaigns allow him to do it,” Salier said.

If Vander Plaats is going to be a threat to Branstad he is going to have to understand that the other half of the campaign still exists, Salier said, and he will have to demonstrate he has ideas about taxes, the budget and other key interests to Republican primary voters, such as “the Second Amendment and illegal immigration.”

“If he understands these issues I think he really makes a run at Branstad,” he said. “If he doesn’t, well, whether [state Rep.] Rod Roberts is in the race and they split a small percentage of the vote is inconsequential.”

Deace pointed to the Republican Party of Iowa’s fundraiser last November as another example of an opportunity lost for the Vander Plaats campaign. At the fundraiser, Branstad delivered a speech that was not well received. He read his remarks from note cards and at times stumbled over his words.

Vander Plaats spoke after the former governor but did not take the opportunity to attack him, Deace said.

“He should have put him down like a horse with a broken leg,” he said. When your opponent is down you should “drive a stake through the heart, cut the head off and stuff it with garlic.”

If Branstad’s record as governor does not come under attack in the primary it will be ammunition for Democrats in the fall. Conservatives will have to chose between the lesser of two evils, Deace said.

“The Democrats win and… the first people they’re going to blame for the loss won’t be there sell out candidate, it will be people like you and I ,” he said, adding: “Nero will blame us for the fire he started yet again.”

WHO-AM radio host Steve Deace

Deace’s comments came while discussing the recent shootings at Fort Hood in Texas, a topic he has returned to repeatedly on his daily WHO-AM program and on his blog.

He first questioned whether those who have “sworn allegiance to Islamic ideology” should be allowed to serve in the U.S. armed forces. He later said the shooter “may have done America a favor” if the tragedy serves as a wake-up call that Islam is incompatible with military service.

He discussed the shootings with Walid Shoebat, an ardent critic of radical Islam and a self-described former Palestine Liberation Organization terrorist (a claim disputed by some Middle East scholars).

Later, Deace and Bob Deever, pastor at Grace West Church in West Des Moines, concluded that the military’s quest for diversity was a “recipe for disaster.”

Lastly, he interviewed Dave Gaubatz, author of “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” Gaubatz has drawn criticism for his book and for publically calling for a “professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders.”

Sheila Musaji, founder and editor of The American Muslim magazine, said despite the fact that every major Muslim and Arab organization has condemned the shootings and offered their condolences to the families of the victims, many are still trying to use the tragedy to inspire hatred of Muslims.

“The suggestion that Islam is the problem can only be called Islamophobia, bigotry, religious hatred,” she said. “The danger in this sort of labeling is that it sets off those among us who are only too happy to have a scapegoat on which to vent their rage. It is an irrational prejudice that lumps all Muslims into one category — the ‘other,’ ‘them,’ ‘those people.’”

Abed Ayoub, legal adviser to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said Deace’s comments are simply hate speech.

“It’s garbage,” Ayoub said. “He’s prejudiced. He believes his race and beliefs are superior to others and wants to attack a segment of the population because of their religious beliefs.”

Since the shootings, Ayoub said his group has responded to a number of attacks against Islam similar to Deace’s, as well has a large amount of hate mail and death threats.When Deace tells listeners that Muslims have “declared their loyalty to a theology that we are currently at war against” then says America needs to “kill [the enemy] before they kill us,” someone listening could take that as a call to violence and “take it a step further,” Ayoub said.

“Everyone has First Amendment rights,” he said. “But we can’t have it escalate from hate speech to hate crimes. After Sept. 11 there were numerous acts of violence.”

If Islam is incompatible with military service, what about “all the other Muslims who have and are serving in the military and those that fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq, Vietnam, World War I and II?” Musaji said.

“Was it in spite of being Muslims — or does religion matter only when a Muslim commits a crime, not when a Muslim is a good and productive citizen?” she said.

Despite comments from those who want to blame the shootings on Islam, the reality is that the shooter “betrayed his country, he betrayed his military oath, he betrayed his medical oath, he betrayed his religion,” Musaji said.

Ultimately, it is up to Muslims to counter statements by reaching out to people in their community.

“Most people want to know the truth,” Ayoub said. “They want to learn. Muslims have to make their voices heard.”

Calling the radio station and complaining to companies that advertise on his show can also go a long way towards combating Deace’s comments, he said, adding: “We have just as much right to be heard as he does.”

This isn’t the first time that Deace has been criticized for statements regarding religion.

In 2004, while he was hosting a sports talk show on WHO-AM’s sister station, KXNO-AM, he criticized Shawn Green, a Jewish outfielder who at the time played for the Los Angeles Dodgers, for missing an important game scheduled during Yom Kippur. Deace said Green could solve all his problems by “accepting the fulfillment of his Jewish heritage, recognizing his Messiah is Jesus Christ, therefore he is the atonement for his sins, no further need to jump through hoops, no further need to recognize or go through observances or rituals or rites.”

Deace said at the time that an executive with Clear Channel Communications, which owns WHO-AM, asked him to allow Jewish leaders a chance to present their views on his show. The Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines declined the invitation and instead discussed the comments with Deace and station executives off the air. They also publicly called for Clear Channel to rebuke Deace’s comments.

In a statement to the Iowa Independent, Deace said he was confused why the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee would speak out against his program:

I wasn’t aware Islam was a religion unique to Arabs, since Iran isn’t even an Arab country and State Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad, who is a Muslim, is also not an Arab. Not to mention the fact my comments regarding Major Hasan’s alleged actions were based on his belief system, not his race.  Thus, I’m not even sure why the ‘American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’ has a comment on my radio program, but I am flattered by the publicity nonetheless.  All I ask is that if they plan on protesting my program could they please make sure to spell my name right, because it is spelled differently then it is pronounced and we are in a ratings period at the moment.

It’s also ironic that I did have an Arab guest on my show condemning Major Hasan’s actions named Walid Shoebat, but somehow the ‘American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’ missed that. If a representative of the ‘American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’ would like to come on my show to discuss my comments and the actions of Major Hasan, I’d be happy to provide them access to the largest media audience in the state of Iowa at their convenience. They’ll reach far more people with their message on WHO then they will on a blog, even one as well-funded as the Iowa Independent.

When asked about whether he is concerned that his statements could be construed as a call for violence against Muslims, Deace said:  “As a broadcaster, I take very seriously how my comments may be construed by the audience, and even try to anticipate that response before I give them. And I took that very seriously in this case. I’m sure I am just as concerned about someone using my comments to justify their own violent tendencies as Muslim and Arab groups are that people like Major Hasan use their religion to justify theirs.”

Deace was discussing the shootings at the Ft. Hood military base in Texas with Bob Deever, pastor at Grace West Church in West Des Moines. Deever said because alleged gunman Major Nadal Hasaan was a Muslim he did not have the proper foundation to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

“He didn’t have the same foundation as we have, which is the Constitution anchored in the gospel of Jesus Christ that protects us no matter what,” Deever said. “So here we have a person or people that are allowed in to our military branch that is supposed to protect the Constitution that don’t even agree with the Constitution we’re fighting for. So to me, the foundation is cracked. It’s broken.”

Deace discussed the Ft. Hood shootings repeatedly last week, first on his drive-time radio program and later on his blog. He doesn’t believe Islam is a religion, rather an ideology, and feels Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military because they have “sworn a public loyalty to the ideology that brave men and women are fighting against.”

During his Friday discussion with Deever, Deace once again brought up a quote from Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey who said he’s worried that rumors and speculation surrounding Hasan’s motives could result in a backlash against Muslim soldiers. He also worried that the backlash could have a negative impact on the military’s diversity.

“Diversity is destructive in some aspects, because the Constitution is not diverse,” Deever said. “The Gospel is not diverse. We as a people group should not be diverse.”

Political pressure is what drives the push towards greater diversity, and it is putting Americans at risk, Deever said.

“It just saddens me to think that we should have any diversity whatsoever in any form that would cause harm to our people like that,” he said. “I think that’s just sad that we would even consider that.”

Earlier in his Friday show, Deace interviewed Dave Gaubatz, author of “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” Gaubatz has drawn criticism for his book and for publically calling for a “professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders.”

Islam is a violent ideology, Deace said, but Americans have constructed an alternative reality regarding what Muslims truly believe in order to find common ground.

“Have we constructed magical thinking and then sort of backtracked our strategy from that desired conclusion because we don’t want to accept the alternative that we may have to live a long, protracted confrontation like what the Israelis have had to go through?” Deace said.

Gaubatz agreed that there is a lot of violence within the Islamic ideology. Instead of fighting wars oversees he said it is time America began trying to protect itself from an attack within. America is being infiltrated by Islamic organizations, and it’s time people realized it.

“We can’t even protect our own borders and we’ve got thousands of troops sitting in Afghanistan,” Gaubatz said. “We need to protect from within first. Then we can worry about setting up in Afghanistan or Iraq.”

In the aftermath of Major Nidal Hasan’s killing spree at Fort Hood in Texas, questions of whether his actions were inspired by religious fervor are still unanswered. But because Hasan reportedly yelled “”Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” before opening fire, Deace believes it is a clear example of political correctness getting in the way of protecting American lives.

“I haven’t said we should purge the military of every single Muslim, but I do think we should start asking ourselves a real key question: If someone has sworn a public loyalty to the ideology that brave men and women are fighting against, why are we giving them uniforms and guns?” he said.

Deace compared allowing Muslims to serve to allowing someone to serve in the colonial army who had pledged loyalty to the British crown or to a Nazi sympathizer during World War II.

The problem, he said, is that society is so worried about offending anyone that they are putting everyone at risk.

“This is the problem with political correctness,” Deace said. “I do not believe Islam is a peaceful religion. But I also don’t believe all Muslims are warmongers. I just think if you look at this history and tradition of Islam, to come to the conclusion that it’s a peaceful religion is laughable on its face. “

Deace was particularly upset with two audio clips he played for his listeners. The first was former President George W. Bush saying Christians and Muslims will both go to heaven, “we just have a different routes of getting there.” Deace said this was absolutely untrue, and that Bush was either lying or uninformed of how incompatible the two religions are.

He then played an interview with Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey who said he’s worried that rumors and speculation surrounding Hasan’s motives could result in a backlash against Muslim soldiers.

“His concern is that we won’t be fair to people who have declared their loyalty to a theology that we are currently at war against. I don’t understand this,” Deace said, later adding: “My concern is that we know who the enemy is and we kill them before they kill us. That would be my concern. Not diversity.”

The problem is that “diversity training and gobbledygook and psychobabble and gay rights and tolerance” have taught society that people who disagree with them are hateful.

“We assume that if I think you marrying another guy is not a good idea for you and that other guy and the children you might adopt, that must mean I hate you,” Deace said. “If I think that the police, instead of interrogating child sex offenders ought to shoot them, that means I hate the sex offenders. If I think it’s not a good idea to have someone who screams out ‘Allah akbar’ to serve in the military, I must hate him. There’s no delineation between the inherent value of human beings created in the image of God and whatever phony, evil things they either believe in or engage in.”

English, who serves as spokesman for the influential social conservative group, said the last thing the party needs is Republican wolves in  “conservative sheep’s clothing.” The focus of the blog eventually turned to a recent Op-Ed in The Des Moines Register written by Doug Gross, the former chief of staff to Gov. Terry Branstad who has argued for more than a year that Iowa’s GOP needs to be more welcoming and less divisive in order to regain power in Des Moines.

The GOP lost Iowa by “driving away voters who share the Republican philosophy of limited government, but grew tired of a preachy, old party that reminded them of their grouchy, old uncle,” Gross said.

English criticized this line of thought, saying it is people like Gross who are damaging the party.

“Never once was there any reference to the political damage done to his party by secular ideologues who insist that people of faith abandon their core principles in order to participate in the party,” English said. “He completely ignored the large chunk of former Republicans who held their nose and voted for [Republican In Name Only] candidates like John McCain, and then left the party in disgust having realized that they compromised their principles and got absolutely nothing in return but a guilty conscience.”

If the “grouchy, old uncle” Gross refers to is English and the social conservative movement, then Gross represents the “frat boy who has never been as popular or successful as his drinking buddies thought he was back in college. He becomes increasingly irrelevant as time goes on, he continues to refuse to grow up, and people quit listening to how great things were ‘back in college,’” English said.

Gross has become a lightening rod on the political right for his calls for the party to end the politics of “cultural and ideological wars.” Leaders in the social conservative movement and right-wing bloggers have turned the man who was his party’s flag-bearer in the 2002 gubernatorial campaign into public enemy No. 1. So far in 2009, Gross and his organization, the Iowa First Foundation, have commissioned two polls that he says offers clear evidence that voters are more interested in candidates who focus on economic issues rather than social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. Social conservatives argue that line of thinking only alienates the party’s most loyal voters.

Ultimately, the line of attack against Gross could eventually be turned on his former boss. Branstad has said he will decide whether to enter the 2010 gubernatorial campaign by next month, and social conservative leaders have already predicted his re-entry into politics could turn the GOP primary into a “blood bath.”

Bob Vander Plaats, right, and Chris Rants

Last week, Rants attacked Vander Plaats’ time as leader of the Sioux City non-profit Opportunities Unlimited. Rants said revenue plummeted and debt increased under Vander Plaats, concluding that the organization “tanked financially during his tenure as CEO and chairman.”

Vander Plaats condemned the attack as false since it includes his tenure as chairman of the board, a time when he was not in charge of the organization’s budget.

In an interview with Deace, Vander Plaats called Rants a liar.

“To take pot shots when you’re trying to build yourself up, to be quite honest with you, is very disappointing,” he said.

Vander Plaats campaign chair and former state auditor Richard Johnson also questioned Rants’ conclusions, saying the veteran legislator doesn’t understand how nonprofits operate financially. He called the statements by Rants “unacceptable” and said he couldn’t work for a campaign that was “willing to put false information out.”

Rants told Deace that Johnson is only looking at Vander Plaats’ years as CEO. Because he was receiving a healthy salary as chairman of the board, Vander Plaats must be held accountable for those years as well.

“I don’t think you would say to me, ‘Chris, I’m only going to critique your record from 1996 to 2000,’” he said. “You’ve got to look at Bob’s record from 2001, 2002 and 2003 when he was chairman of the board.”

While he doesn’t question the work that Opportunities Unlimited has done, the numbers show that under Vander Plaats’ leadership the group saw their revenue go down and their deficits increase.

“Bottom line is, Bob Vander Plaats is taking a page out of Chet Culver’s playbook,” Rants said. “Culver says don’t worry about the deficit, we have a AAA bond rating. Bob likes to talk about the fact that they started this program or had fewer deficiencies, so don’t pay attention to the deficit. But the fact is if you look at the audit… it shows they were running operational deficits.”

If deficits aren’t a big deal, then “you shouldn’t be upset with the [Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium] board or the Enron scandal. If Microsoft goes under, don’t blame Bill Gates, because he’s only chairman of the board.”

This is the third public spat between fellow Sioux City Republicans Rants and Vander Plaats. Vander Plaats attacked Rants’ position on same-sex marriage in June, and last month Rants attacked Vander Plaats’ stance on health care reform.

In addition to Rants and Vander Plaats, four other men are seeking the Republican gubernatorial nomination: Paul McKinley, Christian Fong, Rod Roberts and Jerry Behn.

In late October 2007, while members of the Republican party and White House officials worked to kill an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Grassley instructed Senate Finance Committee aides to distribute positive talking points directly to Republican members of the House that Grassley believed could be persuaded to support the bill. In doing so, Grassley usurped Republican leadership in the House and took his case for the bill directly to rank-and-file Republicans. To add further insult to injury, it was reported that instead of presenting the talking points to Republican leadership, Grassley instead presented them to Democratic leadership before their distribution.

“It makes no sense to negotiate with members who are trying to kill the bill,” Grassley explained on the Senate floor when describing his actions in relation to SCHIP. He went on to call Republican criticisms of the legislation “a very sad mischaracterization of the bill.”

While Grassley has not forthrightly asserted his attentions toward current health care reform is to “kill the bill,” other members of his party have not been so timid.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is rumored to be considering a presidential run, said, “The Republicans should kill the bill. It’s a bad idea.”

U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, of Michigan and the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said that if the “health care bill wasn’t dead before, it should be now.”

Jim DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina, infamously told opponents of reform on a July conference call that “if we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo — it will break him.”

Grassley, who perhaps understands Congressional chess matches better than most, hasn’t gone that far. Instead he has called for the process to be slowed and reassessed, and for the opportunity for more Republicans to have input on the bill.

“It’s not about getting a lot of Republicans. It’s about getting a lot of Democrats and Republicans,” Grassley said. “We ought to be focusing on getting 80 votes.”

Facing an election that might be the most tenuous he’s seen in years and threatened with a partisan primary, Grassley further emphasized this point by saying that he would not vote for a bill that lacks significant Republican support.

What Grassley has omitted from his numerous public comments is how he will overcome what he understood to be true years ago: It makes no sense to negotiate with members who only seek to kill the bill.

Or, as U.S. Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) said, “If they refuse to compromise, then who’s killing the bill?”

Dan Cesar, a registered Republican who in 2008 garnered 1,600 votes in HD90 as a member of the Fourth of July Party, said he believes his district is waiting for a true conservative to emerge, and Republican Stephen Burgmeier is not that person. He is running again without the official endorsement of either major political party.

“Steve and I have been personal friends for 20 years. This is not about Steve and Dan,” Cesar said in an interview with controversial radio host Steve Deace on Friday. “This is about how you phrase your campaign. He has avoided the words pro-life in everything he says. He’s avoided the fact that he’s a Catholic and belongs to a faith community. I take exception to that. His handlers are telling him to do that.”

The race for HD90 is shaping up to be a contentious battle for the seat vacated by Democratic Rep. John Whitaker. The Iowa Democratic Party and Republican Party of Iowa have promised heavy investments in the rural district in the southeastern tip of the state, and several special interest groups are already involved.

Some Republicans are privately voicing concern that Cesar will play the role of the spoiler, siphoning off just enough social conservative voters to tip the election to Hanson. Cesar said if Republicans would simply embrace the pro-life movement and stop avoiding it, he wouldn’t have to run.

“The party told me they don’t want to focus on pro-life,” he said. “So I either run again as a third party or shut up. Shut up and let a coward run as a Democrat and someone I consider a sellout run as a Republican. I stood up and said I will run.”

Cesar then echoed a criticism voiced in new Web ad paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party, pointing out that as a member of the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors Burgmeier voted five times to raise taxes on Jefferson County residents and four times to increase his own pay.

“He’s the best friend the county bureaucracy has ever had,” Cesar said.

Burgmeier and Hanson will participate in a forum hosted by the Fairfield Area Chamber of Commerce and Fairfield Economic Development Association at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 25, at the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center’s Sondheim Center for the Performing Arts. Cesar and the independent candidate in the race, Douglas William Philips, have not been invited to participate.

UPDATE: In the comment section, Brent Willett of the Fairfield Area Chamber of Commerce said Philips and Cesar have officially been invited to participate in the Aug. 25 forum.

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

Speaking with controversial radio host Steve Deace about a recent letter criticizing Grassley penned by GOP state Rep. Kent Sorenson of Indianola, Salier said it is not surprising political observers believed it was the first shot of a coming primary challenge.

“If this were 8 to 10 years ago, then yes, I would have been surprised by that reaction because Grassley was the dominant force in Iowa politics, in both parties,” he said. “Grassley was the dominant force and had an enormous amount of loyalty. That has so eroded out from underneath him. There is so much talk of primarying Chuck Grassley now that I think he had to respond very quickly to somebody like Kent Sorenson to try to head that off if that was indeed what Sorenson was thinking.”

After the letter was made public, Grassley apparently had dinner with Sorenson to discuss his concerns, which included past statements on same-sex marriage and his vote for the $700 million bank bailout.

Earlier in the day, Sorenson told Deace he has no interest in running for the U.S. Senate. However, he said he has been contacted by two different county central committees urging him to challenge Grassley in a primary.

If Grassley doesn’t take Sorenson’s complaints to heart, a primary challenger will emerge and Salier will work hard to make sure Iowa’s senior senator does not return to Washington, D.C.

“If he doesn’t right his ship on this, he very well may face a primary,” he said. “And if it’s someone who thinks like me on these issues or someone who thinks like Kent Sorenson does, I’ll take everything I’ve got to try to propel them forward.”

Grassley’s seniority in the Senate should not be a reason to support his candidacy, Salier said, since something like his position of power on the Senate Finance Committee means “absolutely bupkis if what you do with that power is work with [Montana Democratic Sen.] Max Baucus to try to advance socialized medicine.”

Deace said several times that if Salier were to enter the race, he would defeat Grassley.

“People are that frustrated,” Deace said.

This isn’t the first time Salier has discussed Grassley’s political vulnerablity. He blasted Grassley’s response to the April Supreme Court ruling overturning Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying he “isn’t even close to the same conservative” he was when he was first elected.

Salier is the founding member of the conservative group Everyday America. In 2002 he became a hero of sorts to Iowa’s social conservative movement when he ran a surprisingly close U.S. Senate primary race against Congressman Greg Ganske.

Deace discussed the issue with Drew Zahn, editor of the conspiracy theory Web site World Net Daily, who said that while his cohorts have been “ridiculed and mocked” for continuing to follow the story, it simply won’t go away.

“We’re catching heat from almost every direction,” Zahn said.

Zahn and Deace started off blasting the “mainstream media” for not fully investigating an issue that deals with whether “we’re going to follow the Constitution at its most basic level.”

The pair then attempted to debunk any evidence produced that may contradict their theory — including a certificate of live birth and newspapers accounts at the time — ultimately concluding all materials could be easily obtained fraudulently or easily fabricated.

And even if that evidence was proven real, Zahn said the questions would remain.

“Even if we know he was born in Hawaii or not, we still have questions of whether he is a natural-born citizen,” he said. “On his own Web site, he admitted he was born of a father of Kenyan nationality… a dual citizen. Is that or is that not a natural born citizen? We don’t know.”

“Birthers,” as the believers of this particular conspiracy theory are known, believe that either Obama’s mother gave birth to the future president in Kenya in 1961 or that because Obama’s father was Kenyan and Obama has dual citizenship he ineligible to sit in the White House.

Of course, the birthers theories have been thoroughly discredited, and the U.S. Supreme Court last year dismissed a legal challenge to Obama’s citizenship. Despite this, the issue has gained several high-profile supporters, including CNN’s Lou Dobbs and conservative talker Rush Limbaugh.

This is not the first time Iowa’s largest radio station has dedicated large segments to birthers. Afternoon host Jan Mickelson has repeatedly discussed the conspiracy theory, interviewing numerous proponents who have brought lawsuits in regards to the issue.

Deace discussed the issue once before in January, when he interviewed the birther movement’s most high profile advocate, Orly Taitz, a woman news site Politico describes as “the Russian-born attorney/dentist who has become a kind of ringleader for the movement.” Among other things, Taitz has become famous of late for encouraging soldiers to disobey orders from a president who is “ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of U.S Armed Forces.”