Friday, July 13, 2012

Supremes asked: Who is 'natural born citizen?'

Decision whether Georgia case will be accepted expected in fal

by Bob Unruh / WND
 
120710obamahaloAn announcement is expected sometime in the fall on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will decide just exactly who is a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for all those who would be president.

Officials with the Liberty Legal Foundation confirmed they have filed an appeal of the ruling from the state Supreme Court in Georgia, and a decision by the nation’s highest court on whether it will accept the case is expected over the coming months.

It raises two questions, including whether states can be forced to accept any candidate from a political party for presentation on state ballots even when the candidates do not meet the required qualifications.

The other is the key, “Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II ‘natural born citizens,’ regardless of the citizenship of their parents?”

According to a statement from Van Irion, chief of Liberty Legal, the case that stems from a Georgia dispute “is the first to present the U.S. Supreme Court with a substantive ruling on the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution.”

“All other cases to reach the Supreme Court on this issue had been dismissed on purely procedural grounds. Liberty Legal Foundation’s case is an appeal from the Georgia courts’ substantive ruling,” he explained. “The Georgia courts refused to dismiss our case based upon procedural grounds. The Georgia courts reached the substantive issue, what is a natural born citizen.

“They ruled incorrectly, but that ruling does allow us to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to address the definition of natural born citizen, instead of simply addressing a procedural issue,” the explanation said.

“Now the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to address the definition of natural born citizen, our substantive issue.”

“The petitioners’ challenge in Georgia state court was based upon an uncontested fact: that the respondent’s father was not a U.S. citizen; and upon the legal conclusion that a person must have two U.S. citizen parents to be a natural born citizen under Article II of the U.S. Constitution,” the brief to the high court explains.

“The Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings and Secretary of State ruled that any person born on U.S. soil is a ‘natural born citizen’ as that term is use[d] in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents.”

But the brief argues that conclusion turns states’ rights on their head, because it would allow a political party to demand anyone be on a state election ballot, regardless of what the election code might require.

In Georgia, the law requires, “Every candidate for federal and state office … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

But the state’s ability to require candidates be qualified is separate from the right of political parties to choose their own candidates, the case argues.

“The right to associate easily coexists with the state’s right to determine the manner of choosing its presidential electors,” the brief argues. “Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of any political party’s internal decision making because it does not prohibit the parties from submitting any name…

“The political parties are free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse… However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.”

Under the state rulings, “the political parties could choose to list former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton as candidates for the presidential primary, despite the fact that both President Bush and President Clinton are disqualified to run for that office gain by the 22nd Amendment. … Upon such listing the state of Georgia would have no choice but to place these candidates’ names on its ballots.”

The brief also argues the key question about just exactly who is a “natural born citizen,” which not only could impact the Obama campaign but undoubtedly campaigns of future candidates.

The state decision did not follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Minor” definition of natural-born citizen, which is “binding precedent because the court’s definition was necessary to reach its holding. … Unless and until this court revisits this issue, the Minor court’s definition is binding.”

That ruling said a “natural born citizen” was the product of two citizen parents, under which Obama would be disqualified because of his father’s status as a foreign national visiting the U.S. as a student.

The high court in Minor said, “It was never doubted that all 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 case was brought on behalf of David Welden, Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell. Handling it are Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation and Mark Hatfield of Waycross, Ga.

Officials with the Article 2 SuperPAC, who have been involved the case, said it originated when the plaintiffs challenged Obama’s candidacy on the ballot before Michael Malihi, an administrative judge who decided without evidence from Obama or his lawyer that he was eligible for the office and his name could appear on the Georgia ballot in 2012.

At the hearing level, Malihi simply threw out all of the evidence and ruled in favor of Obama, who, along with his lawyer, snubbed the hearing and refused to appear at all.

An intermediate court followed suit. Then the state Supreme Court dodged the question.

The plaintiffs had argued before Malihi regarding Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for presidents. Obama has admitted in his writings his father never was a U.S. citizen, and attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth.

Malihi had been charged with responding to the complaints brought over Obama’s candidacy under a state law that requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

Of all the eligibility cases to be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices have refused to consider any.

In fact, one justice admitted the court is “avoiding” the Obama issue. Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the issue amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”

“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”

“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”

“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”


Syria believed to be moving "some" chemical weapons

By Barbara Starr /CNN

The United States believes Syria has moved "some" chemical weapons in recent days, a U.S. official told CNN on Friday.

The stockpile is believed to be is under the control of regime forces, the source said.

The official, who would only speak anonymously because the source was speaking about intelligence matters, said the reason behind the movement is unclear. The source could not say what types of chemical stockpiles were involved or how much was moved.

The United States has had satellite surveillance of Syria's key weapons sites since the unrest began.
But it's also likely some of the information came from communications intercepts based on conversations CNN has had with other sources knowledgeable about this matter.

Possible reasons for the move could range from whether it was to better protect the material from the fighting of the spreading revolt in Syria or more ominously to use against the population, the sources said.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report the suspicion.

Pentagon spokesman George Little said Friday that any use of chemical weapons by Syria would be a red line for the international community.  Syrian troops were in control of the chemical weapons stockpiles, Little said.

The State Department spokeswoman said Syria's government needs to ensure protection of its weapons stash.

"We have repeatedly made it clear that the Syrian government has a responsibility to safeguard its stockpiles of chemical weapons, and that the international community will hold accountable any Syrian officials who fail to meet that obligation," said Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman.

A former CIA director, Michael Hayden, said it is more likely that the weapons are being moved for security reasons. But Hayden, who said he has no knowledge of what U.S. officials are seeing, said it is always concerning when such materials are being moved.

"We were always concerned when states we believe had or might have weapons of mass destruction, when those weapons were being moved, when they were in transit," he told Security Clearance, "because there is no way you can make the security of those devices as great when they are on the move as they are in firm, fixed positions, where you have a heavy security routine."

Hayden said it is hard to believe al-Assad's government would use the weapons against its own people.

"Right now they are on the outer edges of being an international outlaw, beyond the edges. And the use of chemical weapons would seem to me to make any opposition to a more active intervention in Syria impossible, even for the Russians, even for the Chinese," Hayden said. "I'm far more concerned about loss of control of the weapons and what happens when the chaos that seems to be affecting larger society might touch upon some of these weapon stockpiles."

Key senators who are pressing for U.S. military involvement to help the opposition were quick to demand more information about the Wall Street Journal story.

"First and foremost it is essential to determine whether this report is accurate, and if Assad is in fact moving chemical weapons, where and why they are being moved. We urge the administration to brief Congress on what is known as soon as possible," read a statement from Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina.

"If Assad is transferring chemical weapons from secure sites to the battlefield, it significantly raises the risks that they will be used or that control over these weapons could be compromised. These are unacceptable risks for the United States and the entire international community, and they would threaten our vital national security interests."

The United States believes the facilities are guarded by some of the most elite Alawite troops loyal to al-Assad.

But a senior U.S. official told CNN in June, when the opposition forces appeared to be gaining strength in some areas, the United States, Jordan and others were concerned that if the amount of area controlled by al-Assad shrinks, some of those critical facilities could become open to attacks, pilfering or efforts by terrorist groups to buy material.

"This is getting a fair amount of attention," another U.S. official told CNN in June. Also discussed with Jordanian forces was the possible need for U.S. chemical and biological weapon-detecting equipment, the official said.

The overall assessment by the United States is that in the event some action has to be taken to secure Syrian chemical or biological weapon facilities, troops from some country would have to enter Syria in a matter of hours.

The U.S. military has calculated it could take more than 75,000 ground troops to secure Syria's chemical warfare facilities if they were at risk of being looted or left unguarded, CNN reported earlier this year.

The conclusion came from a military analysis of options for Syria that the Department of Defense is preparing for president should he request it, according to a senior U.S. official.

Securing Syria's chemical sites would be "extraordinarily difficult" given the scope of the problem, a Department of Defense official told CNN in February. Both officials would speak only on the condition their names not be used because they were talking about military planning.

The U.S. military believes there are 50 chemical weapon and production sites spread across the country with additional storage sites and research centers as well. The cities of Hama, Homs and al Safira, and the port city of Latakia are all believed to house production facilities.

Syria is believed to have one of the most advanced chemical warfare capabilities in the region, with the ability to develop and produce agents such as mustard gas, sarin and possibly the VX nerve agent, according to information collected by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit group that seeks to reduce the risk of use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons  (See NTI's interactive map for more details of where Syria's chemical weapons holding and productions facilities are located).

Iran has been accused of helping train and assist Syrian scientist with the construction of chemical plants, it said.

The United States is paying particular attention to the possibility of the weapons falling into the hands of extremists in the event the government loses control of certain areas or splinters within itself, the defense official said. U.S. intelligence and military officials have raised the concern that al Qaeda in Iraq and other extremists have infiltrated the opposition groups.

"Several dangerous terrorist groups, including al Qaeda in Iraq, are active in Syria, and I am very concerned that as the situation in Syria deteriorates, these weapons could fall into the wrong hands," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Loose chemical weapons in Syria are exactly the type of opportunity AQ has been looking for," he said.

"We cannot discount that the Assad regime could make a decision to use these weapons in an act of desperation, and we must act accordingly."

See the CNN report here:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/13/syria-believed-to-be-moving-some-chemical-weapons/

This is the only person that can send the infamous Debbie Wasserman Schultz packing!

Barack Obama 6 SC Our Money, Mr. Obama, NOT Yours!
Mr. Obama, apparently you and your SOCIALIST minions think that the money earned by American taxpayers is yours to do with as you please. You want to take from those who have worked hard, earned their way, and have paid more than their fair share to governments (local, state, and federal.) In fact, they have all paid MORE than their fair share when you consider, which you won’t of course, that God Himself only asks for 10%!

Citizens are required to pay ONLY for those services that are required by our Constitution. Things like the estate or “death tax” are not only unfair; they are IMMORAL. The people who have left estates to their children or whomever already paid their share of taxes to the government and owe you NOTHING!  Yes, wealth should be allowed to be passed on without further penalty of taxes, Comrades. Someone EARNED that wealth, and what they do with it (short of trying to subvert the United States) is NONE of the government’s business!

I heard former Congressman Anthony Weiner tell Megan Kelly of Fox News, when she asked Weiner if the “death tax” wasn’t unfair, “you’re dead; you’re not paying the tax.” So in other words, you really don’t own your money? How arrogant and condescending is that statement? You see, those who are wealthy, unless they believe in the PROGRESSIVE agenda, should not be allowed to give that money to their own family but to the government so that it is spent on the “left” kind of programs!

Josephine Sixpack (Joe Sixpacks’ wife) takes some of her after-tax money and invests it into stocks as a retirement fund. She is paid interest called dividends on the money that she invested if the companies that her money went into do well! If not, she will lose her money. The government then taxes the dividends again when she takes the money out to live on. The current rate is 15%, but Obama wants to almost TRIPLE that rate to 43.3%! Why should you be double-taxed on money that you were smart enough to invest in order to live in retirement?

You want to be “fair”, Mr. Obama? Then make the 50% of the people who pay no federal tax at all pay at LEAST a token amount for the services that they receive. It is NOT the duty of taxpayers to supply you with a never-ending supply of their hard-earned income. It is the obligation of the government to live within the limits of the money that it takes to run the essential government, not the utopian nightmare envisioned by the PROGRESSIVE zombies. God Himself said in the Bible that “a man who fails to take care of his own family is worse than an infidel.” How are people supposed to do that if the government continually takes the money needed for a man to do just that?

Obama passes the largest tax increase in history through his Obamacare law, and NOW he wants to raise taxes on the rich to bring even more money into the government for them to waste. The Democrats have presented NO budget for over three years for a reason. If they put in writing what they want to do with your money, they know that there would be a midnight “tar and feather” party, standing outside the gates of the White House and the Capital Building. Transparency is just one of the many lies that this administration uttered to get elected.

Our money DOES NOT belong to you and your comrades, Mr. Obama, no matter how you package it. (Oh, it’s for the children’s education. Oh, it’s for clean air and water. Oh, it’s to save the endangered moderate democrat, yada, yada, yada!) If you need money so badly, then why not go to your Socialist master George Soros and his buddies and ask them for some of their offshore billions?

Capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and estate taxes, charged to whatever economic class of people, are WRONG. These taxes are nothing more than double-taxing citizens; yet, you want more? Your reckless spending needs to stop NOW! More taxes won’t make you happy, but they will drive wealthy Americans offshore to more tax-friendly countries. Is that what you and your zombies really want, Mr. Obama? Please tell us when the wealthy are all gone where you plan on getting the money to replace theirs! You people never think that far ahead, which is really scary! Think about this real hard this November, people.

One more thing. The Obama campaign has slammed Mitt Romney for being an “outsourcer of jobs.” I find that hilarious, considering that Obama’s buddy, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt shipped the entire x-ray machine division of G.E. to China!  Oh yeah, I forgot, when your people do it, Mr. Obama, it doesn’t count!

Yeah, that’s fair…..RIGHT!
Op-ed:

The secrets hidden in ObamaCare
By: Diane Sori

Now that ObamaCare has been repealed in the House it’s imperative that it be repealed in the Senate. We all know the face value dangers of ObamaCare but there are dangers lurking below the surface, dangers that the average person might NOT be aware of...dangers that could kill you in ways you never imagined, and I mean dangers beyond the so-called ‘death panels’ and rationed care.

For starters, we all know ObamaCare takes away OUR right to make OUR own decisions about the treatment of OUR bodies.  And most of us know that under ObamaCare the Federal government will now decide how doctors will treat even the privately insured.  As an example, for those having private insurance your doctors will now be forced to provide only care that is approved by the government, and if your doctor does not follow those set guidelines they will NOT be able to practice within the ObamaCare so-called ‘qualified plans.’  With everyone required to be in an ObamaCare sanctioned plan, the doctor who refuses to conform to the plan’s rules and guidelines or who refuses to accept that plan altogether, will no longer be able to practice, meaning we will face a shortage of doctors. 
 
A shortage of doctors as OUR population grows and ages is so serious in its ramifications for the simple reason that people needing immediate medical care will no longer be able to get it because there will be no doctor available to see them.  The direct cause and effect...people will die for lack of medical care.

Also, under ObamaCare, the government now has total computer access to all OUR private records, including OUR bank records, and allows this no longer private information to be given out to third parties (can you say identity theft).  This totally negates OUR Constitutional given right to privacy and gives new meaning to the words, ‘Big Brother Is Watching You.’  Also, with everything under ObamaCare computerized, doctor’s will have to spend more time at a computer than with patients as they must make sure the treatment they are providing meets with and doesn’t overstep or exceed  ObamaCare’s set guidelines and rules for whatever they are treating you for.

And while we all know that taxes will increase under ObamaCare, bet you didn’t know that the biggest burden of all will be carried by those who can afford it the least, meaning those who are currently ill, those who will become chronically ill in the future, and those whose medical bills are already staggering.

Why...simply because under ObamaCare less money will be able to be deducted for medical expenses on personal income tax returns.  So, now Instead of being able to deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of your income, you will have to spend 10% of said income on medical expenses before being able to claim a single medical deduction.  And no matter your income bracket, this will hurt because we all get sick eventually.

This raise in the allowed tax deduction will seriously hurt many as most people do NOT have 6-figure incomes, and they need deductions that allow them to keep money in their pocket instead of handing it over to the government.  How will it kill...simply because now some will NOT seek needed medical care because they can’t afford to.

And the elderly will be hit the hardest by ObamaCare, even the healthy elderly who are covered by Medicare, because as ObamaCare is structured, any further changes to Medicare can now be made without the approval of Congress.  Without the approval of Congress...these words cannot be stressed enough because the executive branch of government can now completely change or alter at whim what medical services will be provided to Medicare recipients, what services they will discontinue, and how remaining services will be allocated and who they will be allocated to.

This gives a whole new even more scary meaning to ‘death panels’ and rationed care.  I can almost guarantee that the senior death numbers will now be on the rise after decades of seniors living longer healthier lives.

Lastly, ObamaCare reduces funding for Medicare by $575 billion just as 30% more people, the vast majority being Baby Boomers, starts entering the program in large numbers.  And with ObamaCare cutting payments to hospitals, doctors, home health care providers, dialysis care, hospice care, and other critical care services, our once state-of-art, first class medical services and institutions will now become second class at best.

But the bottom line and worst of all is that under ObamaCare you will have government controlled puppets along with bought and sold administrators NOT doctors making medical decisions for you.  The death toll will surely rise and the lawsuits coming will be unprecedented...and rightly so.

So knowing all this, it is most imperative that the Senate repeal this abomination and repeal it as soon as possible, and if Prince Harry dares to stop this from reaching the Senate floor then he needs to be brought up on charges of nothing short of high crimes against Americans.

‘We the People’ will demand NO less.