Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Sheriff Joe challenges eligibility in Florida 

Judge also wants White House to back its definition of natural-born citizen

by Art Moore / WND
 
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse lead investigator have submitted sworn affidavits in a Florida case challenging President Obama’s eligibility for the  election ballot of the crucial swing-state that decided the 2000 presidential election.

Significantly, Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County – known for his rulings in the Bush v. Gore case at the center of the 2000 contested election – has confronted the White House for failing to support its claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.

Lewis has scheduled a hearing for Monday at 9 a.m. at the Leon County Courthouse in Tallahassee to hear the Obama team’s motion to dismiss the case and determine whether it should go forward with discovery.

Affidavits from Arpaio, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo and WND author and senior reporter Jerome Corsi have been filed ahead of the hearing. The briefs support the complaint’s charge that there is evidence Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the White House and, therefore, original documentation is needed to determine whether he should be on the ballot.

Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C., watchdogs Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is representing a registered member of the Democratic Party, Michael Voeltz, who has filed the complaint as a Florida voter. Klayman’s work is supported by the non-profit ConstitutionActionFund.org.

Klayman told WND today that unlike other Obama eligibility cases, this case “likely will go the distance” because of the strength of Florida law, which provides voters with the right to challenge a candidate’s eligibility.

“The judge must make a decision based on eligibility,” Klayman explained. “He can’t sidestep it as judges in other states have attempted to do.”

Florida “is our best hope to get rulings on the merits.”

Klayman said he’s confident his client “has an absolute right to challenge Obama’s eligibility on the Florida ballot.”

“As a Floridian,” he added, “I’m proud that the court has the legal means to make a determination on Obama’s eligibility and pray that this court will follow the law.”

Also at issue in the case is whether it is the duty of Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission – named as defendants – to ensure that all candidates on the state’s ballot are eligible.

In a hearing May 31, Lewis noted that while Klayman’s brief cited a U.S. Supreme Court’s decision defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, the White House’s arguments provided no citations.
 
As WND reported, the Florida eligibility case points out that Obama posted on the Internet an electronic image of a purported birth certificate alleging he was born in Hawaii to an American citizen mother and a Kenyan father. The complaint notes that Arpaio’s investigation found probable cause that the document is a forgery. But it argues that even if Obama was born in the U.S., he is not a natural-born citizen, because his father was a foreign citizen.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Arpaio recounts in his affidavit how, in response to the request of Maricopa County residents, he commissioned a team “of former police officers and attorneys who have worked tirelessly since last October, looking into this controversy.”

“Upon close examination of the evidence,” Arpaio states, “it is my belief that forgery and fraud was likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama’s long-form birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number.”

Zullo states in his affidavit that he advised Arpaio that the document posted by the White House as Obama’s birth certificate represents two crimes: fraud in its creation and fraud in its presentation to residents of Maricopa County and the American public as “proof positive” of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

His investigators further determined, he says, that the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged “a systematic effort to hide from public inspection whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in their possession.”

Zullo points to five videos the Cold Case Posse produced at a March 1 news conference to demonstrate why the White House document is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery.

“The videos illustrate point-by-point the investigators’ conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized,” Zullo’s affidavit states.

Corsi’s affidavit says his research continues to indicate “key identity papers for President Obama have been forged,” including the birth document released by the White House and his Selective Service registration form.

Klayman also is submitting, as part of Corsi’s affidavit, a copy of the WND reporter’s book Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, which presents a detailed explanation and history of the natural-born citizen clause and its relevance to Obama.

‘The framers were not stupid’

At the May 31 hearing, Judge Lewis responded to briefs filed by Obama’s team that argued it would be an undue burden and expense for the president to fulfill requests for evidence and testimony in the case.
Judge Terry Lewis

The judge then demanded that Obama’s attorney’s cite the authority on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen.

Klayman has cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875, which defined natural-born citizen as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

“The framers were not stupid,” said Klayman. “They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation.”

Lewis ordered further briefing on the natural-born citizen issue before Monday’s hearing.

Klayman has explained in his court filings that Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure the integrity of the election system. A Florida law enables voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate on the basis of eligibility.

The complaint asserts that because state officials have sworn an oath to “support, protect, and defend” the Florida and U.S. constitutions, they are “duty bound to uphold the eligibility requirements.”

Hard decisions

Klayman, noting Lewis’ decisions in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, described Lewis as “a judge who is not afraid to make hard decisions.”

“In the Gore v. Bush case he ruled on occasion in favor of Bush even though he generally leans left,” Klayman said in a previous interview. “I am hopeful he will do the right thing and rule that the Florida secretary of state must verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot for the Florida presidential election.”

Prior to his part in the Bush v. Gore case, Lewis drew national attention for overturning a 1999 law requiring that parents of minors be notified 48 hours before their daughters have an abortion.

In his ruling, he wrote “not every minor comes from a Norman Rockwell family.”

“Some have problems with abuse if their parents are consulted,” Lewis said.
New York Times v Obama
 
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com

 
Both can't be telling the truth. One is lying.

The New York Times says that the national-security leaks that exposed our cyber-war against Iran and how our drone strikes against terrorists operate came from "aides" to the president and "members of the president's national security team who were in the [White House Situation Room]" during key discussions, as well as current American officials involved with the program who spoke anonymously because "the effort remains highly classified." The author of one of the Times stories, David Sanger, writes that some of his sources would be fired for divulging classified material to him.

White House press secretary Jay Carney calls the charges "grossly irresponsible" and attacks Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for making them.

They can't both be right.

My money is on The New York Times.

At stake is not just some routine Washington leak. Both the substance conveyed and the motivation for passing the information along separate this story from the run of the mill.

The material leaked could not be more sensitive. It includes the procedure by which kill targets among al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen and the Horn of Africa are selected and the personal role the president exercises in the decisions. Another leak explored the details of America's cyber-war against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

But the intent of these leaks is what makes them all the more extraordinary -- indeed, sui generis. While most national-security leaks (like those of Daniel Ellsberg and WikiLeaks) are aimed at exposing and discrediting a program, these leaks are friendly fire -- designed to enhance the president's image during a tough reelection campaign.

These leaks are just means to the end of the president's reelection. They are of a kind with the spiking of the football presidents do.

When George W. Bush declares, "Mission accomplished" or Obama rehashes the details of his decision to kill bin Laden, these are justifiable victory laps around the stadium. But when the leaks compromise ongoing security operations, they fall into an entirely different category. Indeed, they border on treason.

Yet compare the fury generated by the leaking of Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent with the silence that has greeted these leaks. Plame's leaking involved no threat to our nation and did not interdict or threaten any ongoing operation. The leaks were investigated out of pure partisan bloodlust.

The outrage the leaks have kindled in Congress is bipartisan. But from the White House we hear no outrage. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the leaks are, "frankly, all against [our] national-security interest. I think they are dangerous, damaging, and whoever is doing that is not acting in the interest of the United States of America." Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the leaks "endanger American lives and undermine America's national security." Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has convened hearings about the leaks.

But from the administration come only the sounds of silence and the accusation that criticism of the leaks is "grossly irresponsible."

Top political consultant Pat Caddell speculated that National Security Adviser Tom Donilon might be the source of the leaks. That makes sense. What made no sense was to appoint a political consultant to the role of national security adviser (unless it was for this very purpose -- to turn state secrets into campaign ads). 

But as the leaks surfaced in the newspapers, the president himself must have figured out that it was his top people doing the leaking. But he has resisted calls for an independent counsel to investigate the source of the leaks and relies, instead, on his own discredited attorney general to locate their source.

To quote the comic strip "Pogo," the president should admit "we have met the enemy and he is us."

Can We Ban Islam? – Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States


Geert Wilders’ recent call at a Palm Beach synagogue to ban Islam has stirred up all sorts of controversy, with more “moderate” blogs speaking out in opposition to it. So let’s take a closer look at the issue of banning Islam.

Banning Islam is more difficult in the United States than in Europe, because of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward formulation barring the legislative branch from taking any action to create a state religion or barring the practice of any religion.

The founders were English citizens and well aware of the way in which religion could stoke political violence. In the late 18th century, Cromwell was not ancient history, neither were the Covenanters or the Gunpowder Plot. While they did not anticipate like the rise of an Islamic insurgency in America, they understood quite well that religion and violence could and would intersect.

That of course was one of the reasons for barring a State Church, to avoid giving the government control over religion, a situation that had resulted in much of the religious violence in England. By giving religion independence, but not political power, the First Amendment sought to avoid a repeat of the same ugliness that had marked centuries of wars in Europe.

That of course is a key point. The separation of church and state was meant to protect the integrity of both, and avoid power struggles between religious groups. There was to be no state religion, the government could not leverage religious authority and religious factions could not begin civil wars in a struggle to gain power or autonomy. For the most part it worked.

Until now the only real acid test for this approach involved the Mormon Church, an ugly history on both sides that has mostly been buried under the weight of time. More recently Scientology flared up as a cult turned church that demanded its own autonomy and did its best to make war on the government and its critics.

And then there is Islam. The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam—is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a State Religion, around the world and in America as well.

Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the UK have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia, such as Noah Feldman, are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.

This would in effect turn Islam into an Established Religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment.

Furthermore Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect Freedom of Speech and the Press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect Islamic rights therefore means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion—- and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.

These are not hypothetical scenarios, the Mohammed cartoon controversy has demonstrated exactly how this will work. So did the persecution of Salman Rushdie. To accept Islam is to reject freedom of speech and religion… in the same way that accepting Communism meant rejecting freedom of speech and religion. Islam and the Constitution of the United States are incompatible in the same way that Communism and the Constitution are incompatible.

The Founders sought to protect religious freedoms, at no point in time did they seek to protect religious terrorism. And Supreme Courts throughout American history have found that the First Amendment does not provide license for significant lawbreaking. That is why polygamy is not legal in the United States.
Having to choose between religious freedom and the rights and dignity of women and children—America correctly chose the latter.

In 1785, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote, “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”

Yet Islamic history and recent events in Eurabia demonstrate that Islam does indeed spread by force and violence. Upholding the right of Islam to force its statues and views on Americans, violates Madison’s fundamental and undeniable truth.

In 1802, Jefferson wrote his explanation for the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptist Association;
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, and that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that the legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
There is a key phrase in this statement, which is that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. This statement was used as a legal principle by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs the United States. Reynolds had been charged with bigamy and claimed that his faith required him to engage in polygamy.

The Court found that while Reynolds had the right to believe that polygamy was his duty, he did not have the right to practice it—thus upholding Jefferson’s distinction between action and belief.

As the court put it;
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167]  To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
The outcome then was that we could not have a situation in which crimes could be committed in the name of religion and protected by the First Amendment. Belief could not be criminalized, but practice could be.

But what does that actually mean and how exactly do we distinguish between action and practice? Does it merely mean that it is legal to believe in seizing America in the name of Islam, but not to practice it.

We can begin by pointing out that any number of Islamic practices which violate American law or promote an unhealthy social consequence can be banned, for much the same reason that polygamy was. In Reynolds vs the United States, the Court upheld the right of the Utah legislature to brand the spread of polygamy as a threat to innocent women and children, that had to be arrested through strong measures. The spread of Islam’s practices can be seen in the same way.

France has treated the Hijab in a similar way. The United States can too, if it finds any abuse or violence associated with its enforcement or use. Honor killings over the Hijab demonstrate that this is the case. State Legislatures can then move to ban the Hijab.

Thus while we cannot charge someone with believing in Islam, we can stamp out many Islamic practices that are dangerous or abusive. The First Amendment does not protect religious practices that are illegal or made illegal, it protects only the beliefs themselves.

And we can go much further at an organizational level, based on the Sedition Act of 1918 and the 1954 Communist Control Act , which give us some guidelines for cracking down on Islam.
Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives
This applies to Islam just as much as it applies to Communism. And this preamble was part of a passage demonstrating the fundamental distinction between Communism and legitimate political parties.

The assumption of the Communist Control Act was that the First Amendment did not apply to the Communist party or to Communist controlled parties… because they did not fit the democratic template of the First Amendment. As such the Communist party was not a legitimate party, but an overseas directed conspiracy to overthrow the United States and replace it with a Communist system.

Not only can this same argument also apply to Islamic organizations such as CAIR, but Islam can be distinguished from other religions on similar grounds. The following phrase from the original document represents the key point here;
It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
And that is the core of the problem. While we cannot criminalize individual beliefs alone, we can criminalize organizations dedicated to overthrowing the United States and replacing it with a totalitarian system. An organization is not merely “belief”, it also represents an attempt to put those beliefs into practice.

The Internal Security Act of 1950, along with the 1954 Communist Control Act provides extensive legal grounds for criminalizing organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, as well as membership in such organizations—and even provides for the removal of citizenship from members of such organizations.

While succeeding courts have thrown out many portions of these laws, had the United States truly gotten serious about the War on Terror, it could have passed a real Patriot Act that would have clamped down on Islamist organizations in a similar way.

The bill could have easily retrofitted some of the language of the Communist Control Act as follows;
Sec. 3. Islamic organizations, regardless of their assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated:
Sec. 4. Whoever knowingly and willfully becomes or remains a member of such organizations, or (2) any other organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment, control conduct, seizure, or overthrow of the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of force or violence, with knowledge of the purpose or objective of such organization shall be subject to all the provisions and penalties of the Internal Security Act of 1950
The question then becomes one of defining what exactly an Islamist organization is. If we define Islamist under the same guidelines as Communist, but specifically modified as representing a belief in the overthrow or takeover of the United States or any part of it, thereby placing the United States under Islamic law… we already have a very broad net to work with.

Or to simply quote the Internal Security Act again
Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship
Since Islam represents a totalitarian dictatorship, any organization or individual seeking to establish Islamic Law or Sharia within the United States, can be held liable and charged over its violation. This would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

And the Koran or Quran itself represents a volume whose contents implicitly call for the violent overthrow of the United States.

Consider Chapter 9 of the Koran, which governs the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Particularly Sura 9:29
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
There are numerous other verses in the Koran which similarly call for Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and take power. This parallels the charge against the Communist party and places Muslims who believe in the Koran on the same level as Communists who believed in the overthrow of the United States.
Participation in any Muslim organization therefore becomes the equivalent of participating in a Communist organization—and can be banned.

So back to the original question, can we ban Islam? While we cannot ban an individual from personally believing in Islam, we can ban Islamic practices and organizations—which would effectively ban any practice of Islam in an organized way.

While the First Amendment does not permit a ban on any specific religion, this is limited to religious belief, not religious practice. And the laws enacted against Communism in the 1950’s demonstrate that organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized.

Thus we can ban Islam from the public sphere, ban Muslim organizations as criminal organizations, criminalize Muslim practices and even denaturalize and deport Muslims who are United States citizens. The legal infrastructure is there. Despite the fact that the United States is far more protective of political and religious rights, within a decade every single Muslim organization, from the national to the mosque level, can be shut down… and the majority of professing Muslims can be deported from the United States regardless of whether they are citizens or not.

We can do it. Whether we could or will do it is another matter. It would require rolling back a number of Supreme Court decisions that are a legacy of the corrupted Warren Court. But it was possible post 9/11. It may yet become possible again.
Op-ed:
John Boehner...today’s Cowardly Lion
By: Diane Sori

‘Fast and Furious’ is now coming fast and furiously to a head.  House Republicans, going against whiny crybaby John Boehner, have run out of patience with both Eric Holder’s arrogant attitude on the stand, and with Speaker Boehner’s stalling about bringing contempt charges. 

Representative Darrel Issa said yesterday that the House Oversight Committee will vote next Wednesday, June 20th, on a ‘contempt of Congress’ motion against Eric Holder "for his failure to produce documents" that were requested back in October 2011.  Once passed it would then go to the floor of the House for a full vote.

Many in Congress feel that Issa has presented more than enough evidence to proceed against Holder. If indeed cited, Eric Holder would be only the second US Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress by the Oversight Committee.  Janet Reno was the first.  In 1998 the Committee voted to cite Reno for contempt of Congress for not turning over documents during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton.  The full House never voted on the resolution and the documents were finally turned over. 

Speaker Boehner has been stonewalling and trying to NOT bring charges by directly pleading with Obama to force Holder to turn over the thousands of pages of documents asked for, but Holder insists he’s met the requests asked of him by having already providing 7,600 pages of documents.  However, those documents provided are only 10 percent of the documents Issa requested.  Holder claims he cannot supply anymore documents, telling the Committee they will get nothing dated after February 4th of 2011, because the remaining documents pertain to ongoing open criminal investigations and thus cannot be turned over.
Yeah right, I sarcastically say. 
  
But the bottom line in all this is that Representative Issa, the Committee, and ‘We the People’ all know that Eric Holder is withholding information...information that will probably implicate him and possibly Barack Hussein Obama in the gun walking scandal.  And Holder has made it very clear to everyone that he won’t cooperate.  

What amazes me is that Boehner needs to be coerced into bringing charges, especially since the Republicans are currently the majority in the House making chances good that Holder would be found in contempt.  Even some Democrats in Congress have misgivings about Holder and his pattern of stonewalling in this investigation.

With Eric Holder’s circus performance on the stand and his manipulative abuse of the Attorney General’s office, it just might be impossible for Democrats to vote against the contempt charge once the resolution passes the Committee and goes to the full House.  But Holder can still stop this from happening by simply turning over the subpoenaed documents, yet we all know he won’t.

Holder is a national disgrace as our nation’s ‘top cop’ yet Speaker Boehner whines that bringing contempt charges against this sitting Attorney General would take focus off the economy and that would be bad for Republicans in an election year.  What I want to know is how that would be bad...it wouldn’t.  In fact it would be another nail in the Democratic coffin across the board.

The Tim Man wanted a Heart, the Lion wanted Courage, and the Scarecrow wanted a Brain...what I want is for John Boehner to grow a spine and get the courage to do what he knows needs to be done, otherwise we don’t need or want him as our Republican Speaker of the House.

It really is that simple.