Daily Archives: February 25, 2010

This Is Completely Uncharted Territory

The Obama File

Bob Unruh says an attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn’t eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.

And that’s just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF).

Kreep has been involved in several of the cases that have raised challenges to Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office, including two in California.  One is on appeal in the state court system and names California Secretary of State Debra Bowen as defendant.  The other, in the federal court system, is on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Both make claims on behalf of individuals and political candidates in California over Obama’s presence on the 2008 election ballot.

North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible

Kreep’s legal research revealed two precedents he believes would be applicable in the Obama case.  In one, state officials arbitrarily removed a candidate from an election ballot because it was not proven the candidate was qualified for office.  In another, the North Dakota Supreme Court removed the sitting governor from office when it was documented he was not eligible under the state’s requirements.

Now Kreep has released an analysis of the federal laws he believes could be applied should Obama ultimately be shown to be ineligible.

“If he is not eligible, he could be charged not only under with these crimes, but potentially with crimes in a number of states where he falsely represented that he was qualified to run, as well as people who helped him.”

Further, there could be any number of challenges to virtually anything he did as president: his nominations, his executive orders and his signing of legislation.

“This is completely uncharted territory.  It could all be challenged as invalid.  There has to be a sitting president for [actions] to be valid.  If he’s not qualified, if he’s not the president, it isn’t valid.”

Source:

DOJ: Department Of Jihad?

Investors.com

War On Terror: The Justice Department employs nine lawyers previously involved in the defense of terrorist detainees. This is a colossal conflict of interest. Just whose side are they on?

From the dropping of a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party to the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed in a civilian court within blocks of where the World Trade Center once stood, the actions and attitudes of the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder toward the thugs and terrorists who threaten us has grown curiouser and curiouser.

We may now have a clue as to why. Last November, Sen. Charles Grassley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department how many of its lawyers had defended terrorist detainees over whom the department holds sway.

Grassley knew from earlier press reports of two such lawyers who worked on behalf of detainees at the liberal organization Human Rights Watch. He wanted to know how many more there were. Last Friday, Holder answered nine.

“To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees,” Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18. “Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.”

So the decision to Mirandize the Christmas bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, and to quickly get him lawyered up was made by a department populated by leftist lawyers who believe terror is a law enforcement matter and who have tried to get off those actively trying to kill us.

We still have no official answer to what the Justice Department would do if Osama bin Laden were captured.

“It’s like they’re bringing al-Qaida lawyers inside the Department of Justice,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the plane driven by terrorists into the Pentagon, following KSM’s plan.

We still have not been told all the lawyers’ names. Like the detainees they represented, presumably they have the right to remain silent. So much for transparency.

Lawyers in private practice are free to choose their clients and their reasons for defending them. But these lawyers are in the employ of the American people and have the task of prosecuting those who try to kill them. Some chose to defend enemies who are making war on America. We have a right to know who they are, who their clients were and why they defended them.

Complete Story:

Muslims Exempt from Death Penalty in U.S.?

Human Events

Last October there was another in the growing number of Islamic honor killings in the United States when a Muslim in Peoria, Arizona, Faleh Almaleki, got into his Jeep Cherokee and ran down his twenty-year-old daughter Noor, as well as her boyfriend’s mother, Amal Khalaf.

Noor died not long thereafter, and Faleh Almaleki was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. But prosecutors announced this week that he will not face the death penalty – it wouldn’t be multicultural.

Faleh Almaleki’s lawyer, public defender Billy Little, requested that the death penalty not be sought in this case because County Attorney Andrew Thomas is a Christian and Almaleki is a Muslim: “An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs.”

And indeed, the County Attorney’s office ultimately decided not to seek the death penalty, although it denied that Little’s request had anything to do with the decision: “The defendant is charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison,” said County Attorney Office spokesman Mike Scerbo. “As is in all first degree murder cases, the decision on whether to seek the death penalty is made on a case by case basis. Cultural considerations played no part in the decision not to seek the death penalty.”

This denial, however, did not ring true in light of the calculated nature of Almaleki’s actions: “By his own admission,” said county prosecutor Stephanie Low, “this was an intentional act, and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family. This was an attempt at an honor killing.”

If a cold-blooded, premeditated murder doesn’t warrant the death penalty, what murder does? If the death penalty is to be applied or contemplated at all, one would be hard-pressed to find a case more appropriate than one in which a father murders his daughter freely, not in the heat of passion, and with full intentionality, because she does not share his values.

Honor killing is the murder of a wife, daughter or sister by a husband, father or brother in order to cleanse the family’s honor after a sexual indiscretion. Noor Almaleki had enraged her father by becoming “too Westernized” and living with her boyfriend. Honor killing is broadly tolerated in many Islamic countries, and is encouraged by the fact that traditional Islamic law mandates no penalty for a parent who kills a child. Syria and Jordan, among other countries, punish honor murderers more lightly than other murderers, and in Jordan Islamic clerics led the fight against an attempt several years ago to stiffen penalties for honor killing.

This is a human rights issue that ought to merit the attention of anyone who cares for the lives lost to this barbaric practice. Yet American law enforcement officials are doing nothing to call Muslim communities in this country to teach against and work against this practice. And relativist multiculturalists like Billy Little seem to think that taking a strong stand against honor killing would be an illegitimate imposition of Christian values upon a Muslim.

There are larger implications of this decision as well. In my 2008 book Stealth Jihad, I laid out evidence that Islamic groups in the U.S. were working in the courts, businesses, and educational institutions to secure special privileges for Muslims, in accord with Sharia provisions that give them a place above non-Muslims in Islamic societies. And while they have succeeded in local efforts here and there to get special break times in workplaces for prayers, even the most dedicated Muslim Brotherhood entities in America have not yet begun pressuring for the kind of concession that Billy Little handed them.

But they will surely take the hint. For the first time, the idea that all are not equal before the law, but that some are more equal than others, has been given credence by an American court. Despite the County Attorney’s Office denials, a precedent has been set that Islamic pressure groups are certain to exploit to the hilt.

Source:

Hamas-linked group has deep ties to White House


By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


ISNA President Ingrid Mattson

JERUSALEM – A radical Muslim group that was an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to raise money for Hamas has an extensive relationship with the Obama administration, WND has learned.

Last week, President Obama’s top adviser on counter-terrorism, John Brennan, came under fire for controversial remarks he made in a speech to Muslim law students at New York University. The event was sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA.

ISNA is known for its enforcement of Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S. It was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in its case against the Holy Land Foundation in Texas, which was found guilty in 2008 of raising money for the Hamas terrorist organization. Last year, Holy Land founders were given life sentences for “funneling $12 million to Hamas.

The Obama White House has deep ties to ISNA.

Complete Story:

Ariz. Lawmakers Want Presidential Candidates to Verify Citizenship

Fox News

PHOENIX – Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.

A state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure sponsored by 40 of the state’s 90 legislators. It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, said she brought forward the idea after being approached by constituents. She said people have to show their birth certificate to enroll in youth sports or get a passport, so they should have to show it to run for president.

One of the constituents, Jeff Lichter of Surprise, said his motive isn’t partisan. In fact, he says, he has questions about the eligibility of both Obama and his Republican opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

“The citizens of Arizona have a right to know that any candidate placed on the presidential ballot is qualified to run,” Lichter said.

All 40 co-sponsors are Republicans, comprising 75 percent of the GOP caucus, although two of them have since resigned to run for Congress.

Burges said 10 other states are considering similar legislation. Eleven U.S. House Republicans have signed on to a federal bill, but it hasn’t received a hearing in the Democrat-controlled House.

So-called “birthers” have contended since the 2008 presidential campaign that Obama was born abroad, even after his official Hawaii birth certificate was made public along with birth notices from two Honolulu newspapers published in August 1961.

The Constitution says that a person must be a “natural-born citizen” to be eligible for the presidency. The so-called “birthers” suggest that Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate is fake and say he was actually born in Kenya, his father’s homeland.

The Arizona bill would require the secretary of state to review candidates’ documents and withhold a candidate from the ballot if he has “reasonable cause” to believe ineligibility.

Courts have rebuffed lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, but the issue hasn’t gone away.

Northern Arizona University political science professor Fred Solop described “birthers” as a small fringe group of extremists and said the Arizona lawmakers supporting their cause are walking a political tightrope.

“It would be very easy to go a little too far with this, to be aligned with the fringe and to alienate the more mainstream voters who ultimately you need to win office,” he said.

Having lost the presidential race, McCain is now running for re-election in the Senate. His campaign last week sparred with challenger JD Hayworth over Hayworth’s calls for Obama to produce his birth certificate.

A former congressman and talk-radio host, Hayworth told CNN’s Campbell Brown that he doesn’t specifically question Obama’s citizenship but said recent concerns about identity theft mean “it would be great that people can confirm who they say they are.”

Source:

U.S. Pays For Muslims’ Special Islamic Meals

Judicial Watch

Wed, 02/24/2010

In the Obama Administration’s latest effort to appease Muslims, the U.S. government will begin delivering special meals, prepared according to Islamic law, to home-bound seniors in a city known for its thriving Muslim population.

The government-funded Meals on Wheels program, designed to feed disabled seniors who are confined to their homes and unable to make their own food, will begin offering halal cuisine this month in Detroit’s Wayne County, which is home to the nation’s most concentrated Muslim population.

American tax dollars will pay a special company to make the so-called halal meals, which are prepared according to Islamic teachings. Halal is an Arabic term for lawful under Islamic code. This means that pork is prohibited and all meat must come from animals that are ritually slaughtered. Allah must be pronounced during the kill and animals must be properly nourished, well rested and not stressed or excited prior to slaughter.

The costly Detroit program will soon expand into other areas with large Muslim populations, according to officials, who predict New York, Texas, California and Illinois are next. The company that makes the special Islamic meals is also working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop an accredited halal food program.

Convicted felons in California will also get their religiously prepared halal meals in jail after Muslim inmates cried discrimination because Jewish prisoners get kosher meals. Taxpayers in the nation’s most populous state, which is on the verge of bankruptcy, will dish out an additional half a million dollars a year to purchase the halal meals for its 5,000 Muslim prisoners.

This keeps with President Obama’s mission to befriend Muslims. The administration has met with Arab, Muslim and Sikh extremists to discuss national security matters, ordered the nation’s space agency (NASA) to focus on Muslim outreach and diplomacy and has allowed the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have for years banned them from the U.S.

Source:

8 Lies in the President’s Healthcare Reform Proposal

Verum Serum

Most of these are not new, but if the White House is going to use the media spotlight on healthcare reform this week to repeat many of the same lies and half-truths, then it is incumbent on someone to point them out once again.

8. Small business taxes will not go up to pay for the cost of the uninsured. It depends on what the definition of a small business is. The President’s proposal defines this as any business with less than 50 employees. Any business with 51 or more employees which does not provide insurance will be required to pay a fee of $2,000 per worker if any of their employees receive subsidized coverage in the government insurance exchange (although the President’s proposal does except the first 20 employees from this calculation). In addition, any small business owner who earns more than $200,000 per year will be required to pay an additional .9% in payroll taxes for Medicare, and a brand new 2.9% tax on unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.).

7. ObamaCare will lower premium costs for the individual (non-group) market by “14 to 20 percent”. As detailed in my earlier post, the CBO reported that these premiums on average will increase by 10 to 13 percent, and for families who obtain coverage directly they will actually increase on average by 16%, or $2100 per year by 2016.

6. You will be able to keep your doctor if you are on Medicare. Only if your doctor does not opt out of participating in Medicare as a result of health reform, a possibility the government is keenly aware of since the Center for Medicare Services continues to extend the 2010 deadline for physicians to opt out based on the uncertainty over the health reform legislation. The recent, albeit limited, Medicare/Medicaid opt-out by the Mayo Clinic is likely a harbinger of things to come.

5. The President’s proposal will reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next decade, and $1 trillion in the next. Not exactly sure how the White House can make this claim given that the CBO has not and will not score the President’s proposal. These figures seem to be based on the CBO’s score of the Senate bill, but the President’s proposal provides for more generous individual subsidies, increased federal coverage for Medicaid, and reduces the income generated from the so-called “Cadillac tax” – all of which will greatly add to the cost of the bill.

4. Nothing will change if you currently receive insurance coverage through an employer. True enough so long as your employer does not opt to drop health insurance coverage for its employees completely. But according to the CBO this is exactly what will happen to 8-9 million people under the Senate bill. And given the relatively weak employer mandate, I have a feeling the CBO grossly underestimated this total.

3. Medicare benefits will not be cut. The CBO Director directly contradicted this claim while testifying before Congress back in September, a fact which even the White House seems to acknowledge by clarifying that only “guaranteed” Medicare benefits will not be cut. This hair-splitting by the White House will mean little to seniors who lose benefits they currently receive through Medicare Advantage plans.

2. If you like the insurance you have, keep it. Unless you have a Medicare Advantage plan (see #3). Or unless your employer drops your coverage (see #4). Or unless you have a high deductible plan paired with a Health Savings Account (HSA). And if the Democrats use reconciliation to revive the public option as threatened – which notably the President is not opposed to – then we are ultimately all moving to single payer.

1. The President’s proposal represents the “largest tax cut for health care in history”. This one IS new and it is my personal favorite. I suppose it’s true insomuch as no one else has ever had the gall to spin the creation of a $2+ trillion entitlement program as a “tax cut”. Personally I think the fact that the President proposes to provide tax-payer funded subsidies to families earning up to $88,000 the most fiscally irresponsible aspect of the entire plan. Coming a close second is the fact that over half of the cost of these “tax cuts” will be funded from reductions in Medicare spending, when Medicare itself faces insolvency within the next 10 years. If the White House wants to tout these subsidies – funded largely at the expense of seniors – as a “tax cut”…then I say go for it.

In the now immortal words of Congressman Joe Wilson, President Obama:

You lie.

Source:

Appeals court: We’re listening to eligibility case

Judges grant permission for lengthy filing in case challenging Obama
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

An appeals court has indicated it is listening to arguments in a case that challenges Barack Obama’s occupancy in the Oval Office with a ruling that gives special permission for an extra-long document to be filed in the case.

WND has reported on the case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

The complaint also asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.” The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen,” excluded dual citizens.

Complete Story:

IMPORTANT:John Brennan Involved in Obama Passport Breach

Atlas Shrugs

Quid pro quo?

If you recall, during the presidential election, I ran a number of stories on the passport breach of Obama’s passport at the Department of State.

It bears noting that John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, who made those recent incredible pro-terror remarks, some in Arabic no less, about the beauty of jihad, was connected with the tampering with Obama’s passport.

Back in March 2008, the State Department launched an investigation of improper computer access to passport records of Barack Husssein Obama. The investigation was focusing on one employee — a contract worker with a company headed by an adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (more here at The Washington Times)

Obama said at the time:

In Portland, Ore., Mr. Obama said the series of attempts to “tap into people’s personal records” were “a problem not just for me but for how our government functions.”

Laughable considering how intrusive his administration has been and continues to be in accessing private information.

Officials do not know whether information was improperly copied, altered or removed from the database during the intrusions.

[…]

“As soon as we realized that there were these unauthorized accesses for Senator Obama’s passport files, we collected the information, we briefed the secretary, we briefed Senator Obama’s staff, all before we ever replied to the reporter,” Mr. McCormack said.

You will also recall that the key witness in the presidential Passport tampering case mas murdered. Shot in the head, in his car, in front of his church.

Chief of firm involved in breach is Obama adviser
updated 9:10 p.m. EDT, Sat March 22, 2008
cnn.com
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.
John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.
Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.
The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January…

Back in March 2008, State Department employees had tampered with the passport files of Barack Obama.

At the time, “State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the violations of McCain and Clinton’s passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the unauthorized access of Obama’s records and a separate search was conducted”.

The incidents raise questions as to whether the information was accessed for political purposes and why two contractors involved in the Obama search were dismissed before investigators had a chance to interview them.

I always thought they rifled through Clinton’s and McCain’s files to make it look as if it was all three, but it was Obama’s passport records that they accessed. Secondarily, almost as an afterthought, there were “violations” concerning Clinton and McCain. But who stood to gain from a tampering, and why?

There is a video here of Obama’s response to the passport “breach” back on March 21, 2008. Watch it – I think it’s telling that he says, not that he has anything to hide: “not because I have any particular concerns” [minute -.23]. This is before the birth certificate question. Who would say that?

Passport breach March 21, 2008.

On April 8, 2008, Obama confessed to having taken a trip to Pakistan in 1981. Here is what Obama said –  Jake Tapper was there:

“So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa –knowing the leaders is not important — what I know is the people...I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college — I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

Tapper was surprised and said:

This last part — a college trip to Pakistan — was news to many of us who have been following the race closely. And it was odd that we hadn’t hear about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign.

Much speculation has been made about what national passport Obama used when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981.

So Obama confessed to this trip two weeks after his passport was tampered with.

Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and ruled of martial law. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan, while the Afghan Mujahedeen operated from bases inside Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. One of the leaders that based his operation in Quetta, Pakistan was Usama Bin Laden (The Sheik).Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. (more here)

Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot Washington TimesApril 2008

A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.

Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division.

Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.

Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.

City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.

“We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said.

Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.

A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.

The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks.

One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.”

Also disturbing is this analysis from Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief:

Morbid thoughts CNS News (hat tip Randall)

How much – if anything – the 19- or 20-year-old Obama knew about the Afghanistan jihad during that 1981 visit is unclear.

But it’s precisely the shortage of details that worries some, like veteran security analyst Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief.

Mulling how a President Obama would deal with each of South Asia’s historical foes, Raman said that as an Indian, he naturally felt troubled that Obama had not disclosed the Pakistan visit earlier.

“Why did he keep mum on his visit to Pakistan till this question was raised?” asked Raman, who is the director of India’s Institute for Topical Studies. “Has he disclosed all the details regarding his Pakistan visit? Was it as innocuous as made out by him – to respond to the invitation of a Pakistani friend or was there something more to it?”

Raman continued, “As I read about Obama’s visit to Pakistan in the 1980s, I could not help thinking of dozens of things. Of the Afghan jihad against communism. Of the fascination of many Afro-Americans for the jihad. Of the visits of a stream of Afro-Americans to Pakistan to feel the greatness of the jihad. Of their fascination for Abdullah Azzam …”

Raman said although having such thoughts may seem “morbid,” it was “understandable when one has a feeling that one has not been told the whole story, but only a part of it.”

“It is the right of the Americans to decide who should be their president,” he said. “It is my right to worry about the implications of their decision for the rest of the world, including India.”

The Obama campaign did not respond to an invitation to comment on some of the speculation surrounding the visit to Pakistan or to provide further details about the trip.

And this:

According to published reports in Pakistan, Obama in 1981 also stayed at the home of a prominent politician, Ahmad Mian Soomro, in an upscale Karachi suburb, and went on a traditional partridge hunting trip north of Karachi. Soomro’s son, Muhammad Mian Soomro, is a senior politician who served as acting president before the appointment of President Asif Ali Zardari last September.