Eligibility challenger: Bring on the evidence Officer who refused orders from Obama chain of command seeking birth records

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin

A decorated Army officer who faces the possibility of years in jail because he refused orders from the military chain of command under President Obama, citing the president's refusal to prove his authority to issue orders, is asking to see evidence that Obama is eligible for the Oval Office.

The request comes from Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who earlier posted a video challenging the military to bring him to trial on charges he refused to deploy to the Middle East in an effort to force the revelation of Obama's birth documentation.

The Army responded by filing charges against him and rewriting a performance evaluation to condemn him for his efforts.

But now Lakin, who is aided by the Safeguard our Constitution website, is asking for a deposition in Hawaii with the records-keeper of the Hawaii Department of Health – and the production of all of the state's records concerning Obama.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.

A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

(Story continues below)



Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has concealed documentation, including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. But Lakin is the first active-duty officer to raise the question.

In at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head.

Lakin, who previously has served in Afghanistan, refused orders this spring to go again, "because the president refuses – even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary – to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office."

Now Lakin is facing a court-martial and as part of his defense wants the information from the state of Hawaii. According to the American Patriot Foundation, Lakin's request was submitted to his commanding general. He seeks approval for the Hawaii deposition – an on-the-record statement – regarding Obama's birth records.

"The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the Internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii's Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu," the foundation confirmed.

"Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the head of that agency, has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the department's custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that he was told that the department's records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii," the organization said.

"The United States Constitution requires that a person be a 'natural born citizen' to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a 'natural born citizen.' An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health (is) an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama's constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008," the foundation said.

The issue of the Hawaii records has been a volatile point in the argument. The state of Hawaii has gone so far as to approve a law that allows the state to ignore repeated requests for documentation about Obama's birth.

The state's governor, Linda Lingle, just months ago told a New York talk-show host that it was an "odd situation".

"This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country," she said on the radio show. "So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue, and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."

However, no news release from the state of Hawaii identified the birth location as Kapi'olani. And Lingle's statement also was contradicted by Fukino, who reported, "No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."

Critics also note that while the Obama campaign posted a computer image of a "Certification of Live Birth" online during the 2008 election run-up, the procedures at the time allowed such certifications to be issued on the sworn statement of a relative for a child not born in the state.

The American Patriot Foundation said those records have been the targets of many civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. But the lawsuits all have been dismissed on procedural grounds, such as the "standing" of the plaintiff, and none has yet addressed the merits of the arguments.

"While no civil litigant has obtained discovery of these records, and all the civil lawsuits seeking those records have been dismissed on procedural grounds, Lakin's case is different because he is the subject of criminal prosecution, and upon conviction stands in jeopardy of being sentenced to years at hard labor in the penitentiary," the foundation said.

The issue of Obama's birth "in Hawaii" also arose after he assumed the Oval Office when a letter was revealed that purported to be from the president claiming Kapi'olani as the place of his birth.

The letter, dated Jan. 24, 2009, was used by the hospital at a fundraiser but later concealed.


A photograph taken by the Kapi'olani Medical Center for WND shows a letter allegedly written by President Obama on embossed White House stationery in which he declares the Honolulu hospital to be "the place of my birth," The hospital, after publicizing the letter then refusing to confirm it even existed, is now vouching for its authenticity, but not its content. The White House has yet to verify any aspect of the letter.

"As a beneficiary of the excellence of the Kapi'olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters," Obama purportedly wrote.

The letter was referenced by then-Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, during the Jan. 24, 2009, hospital dinner. Kapi'olani has said officials "know" the letter is real, but hospital spokeswoman Keala Peters refused to corroborate the content.

As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to document his eligibility March 30. Since then, the military has launched a court-martial against him for disobeying orders, and a trial is expected later this year.

Lakin confirmed he has waived his Article 32 preliminary hearing in the case so it can proceed directly to trial.

The move came after Daniel J. Driscoll, an Army hearing officer, banned Lakin from bringing in evidence about Obama's birth as well as testimony from Hawaii officials who may have information on the subject.

"In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president's credentials on trial," Driscoll wrote in a memorandum determining what evidence the defense for Lakin would have been allowed during a preliminary hearing.

But in a new video, Lakin said the issue is important:

Lakin said Driscoll's decision made it impossible for him to present a defense at the hearing, so he was waiving the hearing and instead will use the time to prepare for a trial in which he will renew his request for the documentation.

He cited a long list of "reasonable arguments" raising questions about whether Obama was born on American soil. He also pointed out how the "documentation" provided by Obama during his campaign, a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, until last year wasn't even recognized by the state of Hawaii itself for a number of uses. Also, officials in the state have refused to confirm its authenticity.

"The Constitution matters," Lakin said. "So does the truth. Americans deserve answers, not a coverup."

Lakin's attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, told WND that of the dozens of cases that have been brought to various courts over the issue of Obama's eligibility, Lakin's probably is the strongest.

Jensen expressed confidence that the necessary information will be obtained for the defense.

"This is a criminal case," he noted, with a possible punishment of several years in jail. "In order for a criminal defendant to defend himself in a criminal court he has to be given the opportunity to put on a defense.

"The records are relevant."

Jensen, in an earlier interview on the G. Gordon Liddy radio program, confirmed, "Every criminal defendant has to be allowed the benefit of doubt to discover information relevant or which may even lead to the discovery of relevant information that could support his case.

"It would be shocking to me that a defendant ... would not be permitted to discover information that would lend itself to proving his [case]," he said at the time.

The discovery-of-evidence issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.

Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the SafeguardOurConstitution website. He brought a previous court challenge, now on appeal, on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" and, therefore, resolved.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."

Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

In a separate case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threatened sanctions against attorney Mario Apuzzo, but quickly backed off when he noted that under the rules of court procedure, being subjected to sanctions and penalties would give him the right to discovery in the case, possibly including Obama's birth certificate.

The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and, while the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Critics say Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted in his book his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn't even born in Hawaii.

Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, has said there "definitely" are problems with Obama's Hawaii birth story.

"As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii," he said.

Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.

The Amnesty Memo - Run for the American Border

The Amnesty Memo
July 29, 2010 5:30 PM
By Robert VerBruggen

According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.

“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.

Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”

In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. “Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,” a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)

Many of the memo’s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for “unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.” It also proposes extending the “grace period” H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they’re expected to leave the country.

With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.

The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.

In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy — and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation’s de facto amnesty.

UPDATE: USCIS has released a statement on the memo:

Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.

Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS — nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.

Utah children's social security numbers still being used by illegal immigrants

Salt Lake City (ABC 4 News) Do you know where your child's social security number is? You probably have his or her card tucked away at home, but their numbers may be showing up at work sites all over Utah.

While 9-year-old Brooklyn bounces on a trampoline in West Bountiful - someone is using her social security number at work in Draper and out in California. "Right now we know two for sure and maybe a third." That's what her step father Eli Burke tells us about Brooklyn's not so private social security number. And the problem isn't new. Brooklyn's family learned about this when they applied for state medical coverage, back when Brooklyn was four. "We start calling around to Social Security. We called the police, but they didn't do anything."

Five years later - people are still using her number and, still using a lot of other Utah children's numbers. "As of February, 1,265 Utah children, under the age of 12, are victims of somebody else misusing their number." That's according to Utah Assitant Attorney General Rich Hamp. And Hamp should know he is the man in charge of prosecuting these cases. "When I get the report in through IRI- we track it down and when we find the person at the end - we prosecute." And Hamp says most of the offenders are illegal immigrants using the numbers for work. "In virtually every case we have investigated, with the exception of one, it has come back to an illegal immigrant."

Hamp says while he has prosecuted hundreds of people - he can't really keep up because there are thousands of cases. In fact, if you look at a map on the attorney general's IRIS web site ( http://iris.utah.gov/iris/public/map.do )every purple marker is a social security i-d case. And remember, these are just the ones that have been reported. The state estimates around 20 thousand Utah children's numbers are being used. Some, like Ron Mortensen, a child identity expert, believe the number could be closer to 50,000. of the say up to 50 thousand have been used.

Hamp says it is just so much easier to use a child's number versus an adult's number. "Someone on a child's number is going to get away with years of misuse before anyone discovers it."

Utah is unique in that it does notify families when it finds an issue, most state do not do that. And the attorney general has a website to report stolen social security numbers. But the problem is so widespread and so hard to detect, that many experts believe without major change - like forcing employers to verify social security numbers before they hire anyone - there is no way to slow it down.

For more information check out these sites.

http://iris.utah.gov/iris/public/map.do
http://idtheft.utah.gov/reportidtheft/index.html
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10064.html

McCain: Unions trying to legalize, recruit illegal immigrants

Labor unions oppose the Arizona immigration law because some of them want to legalize then recruit illegals into their ranks, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday.

McCain specifically mentioned the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as one union that wants to engage in the practice since it represents many people who work in the tourism industry, which he said employs many illegal immigrants.

”They want to have them declared legal to recruit them into unions,” he said in an appearance on the conservative Michael Medved radio show.

The Arizona senator’s comments are likely to fuel the ongoing debate over his state’s controversial immigration law. A federal judge on Wednesday granted the U.S. government an injunction against its key provisions, frustrating its supporters, including McCain.

The 2008 GOP presidential nominee called the decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton “a paradoxical and contrary position that I have a hard time understanding.”

Labor unions have been some of the staunchest critics of the Arizona law, arguing that it would result in racial discrimination.

"What we need is for Republican leaders like John Mcain to stop testing the political winds of expediency and start working with Democrats to replace chaos with order and restore the rule of law," SEIU spokesperson Ali Jost responded. "The alternative -- a 50 state patchwork of conflicting state laws--won't deliver the solutions that Americans are demanding."

In her decision, Bolton argued that the law posed “a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]” therefore putting a “ ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

But McCain argued that the law was simply a response to federal inaction in securing the border.

“It was bred out of the frustration of the federal government’s failure to get our border secured,” he said.

He predicted that the state would challenge Bolton’s decision and that the case would eventually reach the Supreme Court.

We may restrict the ability of immigrants to have children who become citizens just because they are born

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.

Currently, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born in the United States.

But with 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., Graham said it may be time to restrict the ability of immigrants to have children who become citizens just because they are born in the country.

“I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here,” Graham said during an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake ... We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen.”

Asked how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: “I got to.”

“People come here to have babies,” he said. “They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave." To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.”

Graham insisted that he wants to be “fair” and “humane” in dealing with the children of immigrants but doesn’t want to see an already significant immigration issue become larger.

“I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward, I don't want 20 million more 20 years from now,” he said. “I want to be fair. I want to be humane. We need immigration policy, but it should be on our terms, not someone else's. I don't know how to fix it all. But I do know what makes people mad, that 12 million people came here, and there seems to be no system to deal with stopping 20 million 20 years from now.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40395.html#ixzz0v8EhxvSu

Support for Mexican Border Fence Up to 68%

Support for the building of a fence along the Mexican border has reached a new high, and voters are more confident than ever that illegal immigration can be stopped.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of U.S. voters now believe the United States should continue to build a fence on the Mexican border. That’s up nine points from March when the Obama administration halted funding for the fence and the highest level of support ever.

Just 21% oppose the continued building of the border fence.

Support for the fence is strong across all demographic groups. But while 76% of Mainstream voters think the United States should continue to build the fence, 67% of the Political Class are opposed to it.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all voters believe it is possible to end illegal immigration. That’s up slightly from April of last year.

Now only 36% do not think it is possible for the United States to prevent illegal immigrants from getting into the country. That’s down sixteen points since October 2008.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on July 24-25, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Illegal immigration, always a concern to many voters, has taken on increased visibility due to the controversy over Arizona’s new immigration law. The state law went into effect today, but a federal judge has put several of its more controversial provisions on hold until a Justice Department legal challenge of the law is resolved.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide oppose the Justice Department’s decision to challenge the Arizona law, and 61% favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.

Fifty-four percent (54%) say the Justice Department instead should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Even more think the federal government should cut off funds to these “sanctuary cities.”

Most voters ages 40 and older say it is possible for the United States to end illegal immigration. Republicans by better than two-to-one are more confident than Democrats that it’s possible. Voters not affiliated with either party are more closely divided on the question.

Most members of the Political Class, however, say it can’t be done. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Mainstream voters say it is possible to stop illegal immigration, but 58% of the Political Class disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters say the Political Class doesn’t care what most Americans think anyway.

The number of voters who view the issue of immigration as Very Important has jumped 16 points from last month to its highest level ever, although it still ranks fifth on a list of 10 issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

In December 2008, just after President-elect Obama put Janet Napolitano, an opponent of the border fence, in charge of immigration activities, 74% of voters said the federal government was not doing enough to stop illegal immigration.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe the federal government by failing to enforce immigration law is more to blame for the current controversy over Arizona’s new statute than state officials are for passing it.

In fact, by a two-to-one margin, voters believe the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.

Voters also have said consistently for years that when it comes to immigration reform, gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.

Still, 58% favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only national security threats, criminals and those who come here to live off the U.S. welfare system.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Calm urged after judge's 'beyond absurd' ruling Clinton appointee guts Arizona law to defend citizens from illegal aliens

An activist group battling illegal immigration is calling for citizens to remain "calm" after a ruling from a federal judge in Arizona gutted a state law intended to defend citizens from illegal aliens – a decision a key member of Congress called "beyond absurd."

The ruling released today by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, a Clinton appointee, struck down sections of the Arizona law that made it a crime not to carry appropriate papers for immigration registration and criminalized illegal aliens' efforts to get jobs.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law and has accused the federal government of failing her citizens, promised to continue pursuing the case on appeal and go as high as the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Those applauding Bolton included the Mexican government, which had complained to Congress about the law, which made it a crime to be illegally in the U.S.

(Story continues below)



Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the ruling fails the logic test.

"The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels and human smuggling," he said. "The people who live under the constant threat of border violence have every right to be protected and have every right to defend themselves, their families and their communities."

Issa said he is "certain that the Supreme Court would agree that there is no legal recourse or precedent for stopping a state from operating within its rights by asserting its sovereignty in support of immigration laws that the federal government has failed to enforce."

"There's nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won't do and can be stopped for what it might do and to exercise a judgment against a state that has passed a law that is consistent with existing federal law is beyond absurd," Issa said.

It was the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC that pleaded for calm.

According to a prepared statement signed by William Gheen, its president, "There is a sense of extreme anger sweeping America today, in reaction to the news that Obama and U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton thwarted democracy in America. We are appealing to Americans to remain calm and to channel that anger into sweeping politicians, business leaders and special-interest groups that support comprehensive immigration reform out of power in the elections."

ALIPAC asserted President Obama and Judge Bolton "sided with illegal aliens against the American public."

"The will of the American public has been usurped," the group said. "The president is required by the U.S. Constitution to protect all states from invasion, while assuring states a Republic form of governance. With this court case Obama has deprived Americans of both!"

The statement continued, "It is a sad day in America, when part of our own government has turned against the American public on behalf of invaders."

The American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling was "extremely disappointing."

The organization had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of 81 members of Congress in support of the state's effort.

"It is unfortunate that this court blocked key portions of Arizona's immigration law S.B. 1070 and failed to permit it to take effect in its entirety," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the organization. "We believe the federal district court got it wrong and in its complex ruling has made it even more difficult for Arizona to protect and defend its borders. We believe Arizona's law complements federal law and remain hopeful that the appeals process will ultimately produce a decision that underscores the fact that Arizona has a constitutional right to protect its citizens and defend its borders. This decision marks the beginning of a lengthy legal process that will have tremendous ramifications nationwide."

Its brief had argued that while the federal government has power to set immigration law, the state effort did not "interfere with the U.S. foreign-policy goals as prescribed."

Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, said it is a simple case of career-building.

"After many years of legal practice, I had no difficulty predicting the result. Judge Bolton, who was appointed to the court during the Clinton administration, knows that if she is ever to be nominated to a higher post – perhaps at the Ninth Circuit – that she better not rule against her benefactor, the Democratic establishment now led by President Barack Obama," he said.

"Regrettably in her zeal to cover her own political flanks, the people of Arizona and the nation have been treated as unimportant. This is just another example of the judiciary feathering its own nest, at the expense of the people."

He said the ruling "is not only outrageous, it also conflicts with established law that police officers can probe into such matters once 'probable cause exists.'"

"Now, it is even unclear, given the judge's politically motivated ruling, that they can even follow the law that existed before Arizona S.B. 1070. Judge Bolton, in her zeal to bow down to and further the pre-election strategy of President Obama and the Democrat establishment, has subverted legitimate law enforcement and endangered the citizens of Arizona."

Klayman's organization represents the Arizona Latino Republican Association and its CEO, Jesse Fernandez, both of whom support Arizona's law.

"My clients intervened in this case to tell the American people that Latinos also respect the law and are proud to be part of this country, and want to play a major role in solving the illegal-immigration problem. The rich Latin culture has added greatly to our nation and its values," Klayman said.

The judge's ruling attacked four parts of the state law, placing them on hold while the full trial and appeal process is being run.

"Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws," Bolton wrote.

A few provisions, such as state plans to prevent "sanctuary city" policies, are going into effect.

Are illegals infiltrating U.S. military bases? Sheriff Joe hunts aliens working at Army intelligence post

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Sheriff Arpaio posted this photo to Twitter with the following caption: "This is a message to smugglers who may think law enforcement is not prepared to encounter them in the desert."

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is warning that illegal aliens may have gained access to a U.S. Army installation in Arizona that also serves as the nation's largest military intelligence-training center.

"I have deep concerns that people who come into our country illegally have managed to gain access onto an active U.S. military installation," Arpaio said in a statement today. "This cause for concern goes well beyond the argument that people are only committing the crime of wanting to work in this country."

Arpaio's detectives raided Valley View Building Services in central Phoenix today, searching for 25 people suspected of identity theft and fraud.

The company employs 100 people in three states and is contracted to clean newly constructed buildings at Fort Huachuca, an Army post located only 15 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border. At least one of the suspects had worked on the military installation.

The deputies took five women into custody today. Four are suspected illegal aliens arrested for identity theft and fraud. One is a U.S. citizen wanted with an outstanding warrant.

"When we went in there, one of the ladies was hiding her Mexican ID in an enchilada, trying to conceal the identification," Arpaio said.

He said authorities are still searching for other illegal aliens who may be working for the company.

"We did serve another search warrant on the residence of the owner and, going through the papers, we're going to determine which work sites that the others may be working at," he said.

Arpaio told KTVK-3 TV, "One thing I want to find out is how many more illegals have been hired [to work at] Fort Huachuca. That's a high-intelligence installation. I don't think people should go on that installation to work if they're in this country illegally."

Valley View Building Services released a statement on the arrests today.

"In May of 2010 a manager for Valley View Building Services was detained on the Fort Huachuca military base for a baseless charge made by a disgruntled employee," explained Joel Votaw, owner of the company. "This charge has since been dropped. During that investigation, it came to light that he was working in the United States illegally, even though he presented a valid Arizona drivers license and social security card. He was allowed on base (entering through the main gate and having to present his ID each time) during the entire duration of this 3-month-long project."

Votaw said his company fired the manager immediately and that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement began a company-wide investigation into Valley View's hiring practices. He said today's raid was for ID theft issues and not due to violation of the employer-sanction law.

Most of the company's workforce is Hispanic, according to news reports. Votaw said he has always verified identification of its employees through E-Verify, strictly complying with local, state and federal rules.

"Today was the first time we had received any notice that there were more problems. We support the detaining of the four people who were identified as using some other identity and we also support the detaining of the one individual that has a misdemeanor warrant out for his arrest," he wrote. "These crimes are serious and need to be dealt with."

Votaw continues, "We are dealing with real people and real problems that deserve to be handled respectfully and justly. If we err, let us err on the side of compassion, but let us do what is required of us both morally and constitutionally. Let us protect our country, while also realizing that we were all immigrants at one time."

(Story continues below)



According to various reports, this is hardly the first time illegal aliens have accessed the military installation.

Retired Army officer T.J. Woodward lives in the area. In a May commentary posted on American Thinker, he wrote that he spotted an ad in a Fort Huachuca newspaper asking for volunteers to clean up trash and supplies left on the Army post by illegal aliens.

"It asked for volunteers to assist in cleaning up 'dumps' on posts where the illegals would drop their supplies used to cross the border and change clothing," Woodward wrote. "They do this in order to blend in and not look like they just spent a day or two crossing the border in the dust and heat of southern Arizona."

He added, "The most frightening part of this is that Fort Huachuca is the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, where the Army trains its intelligence soldiers – analysts, interrogators, radio intercept specialists and counterintelligence agents – for operations overseas. If we can't secure the fort we use to train our intelligence soldiers, how can we secure anything else?"

In 2007, The Washington Times reported Fort Huachuca changed security measures "after sources warned that possibly 60 Afghan and Iraqi terrorists were to be smuggled into the U.S. through underground tunnels with high-powered weapons to attack the Arizona Army base."

An FBI advisory stated, "A portion of the operatives were in the United States, with the remainder not yet in the United States. The Afghanis and Iraqis shaved their beards so as not to appear to be Middle Easterners."

According to the report, illegal aliens from the Middle East paid Mexican drug lords $20,000 "or the equivalent in weapons" for smuggling them and their weapons through the tunnels.

One source who spoke with DEA intelligence agents said the weapons included two Milan antitank missiles, Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles, grenade launchers, long guns and handguns.

The Tucson Weekly reported one rancher just west of Fort Huachuca answered his door in 2004 when a female illegal alien asked to use his phone.

According to the report, the call was to Libya.

As WND recently reported, thousands of illegal aliens apprehended along the 2,000-mile border stretching through California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas aren't even from Mexico. Many are citizens of countries that are known sponsors of terrorism, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Iran.

Arpaio's crime sweep took place just before a federal judge blocked some of the toughest provisions in Arizona's illegal-immigration law, S.B. 1070.

Indignant' Muslims reject plan to counter violent extremism Meeting with Napolitano included promise of regular consultations

Posted: July 29, 2010
10:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing titled Gulf Coast Catastrophe: Assessing the Nation's Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 17, 2010. UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg Photo via Newscom

A series of e-mails from the Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency that has warned of a threat from "right-wing extremists" like those worried about national sovereignty, reveal the agency has held a series of meetings with Muslims who apparently rejected the government's request to help counter violent extremism.

The new e-mails were uncovered by Judicial Watch, the government watchdog organization that hunts down and seeks the prosecution of government corruption.

The e-mails relate to several days of meetings the DHS held Jan. 27-28 between DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and various Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South Asian "community leaders."

What does Islam really have planned for the U.S.? Read "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America"

The e-mails reveal the attendees included Imad Hamad, the Midwest regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, who Judicial Watch said has been linked in press reports to the Marxist-Leninist terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Judicial Watch reported he also "has financially supported the Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah" and in a 2002 interview on Detroit television "supported a Palestine Authority TV program that urged children to become suicide bombers, calling the program 'patriotic.'"



Another participant, according to Judicial Watch, was Salam al-Mayarati, who founded the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council. Judicial Watch said al-Mayarati "has long been criticized for his extremist views and statements. In 1999 former House Minority leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., withdrew his nomination of al-Mayarati to the National Commission on Terrorism because of al-Mayarati's extremist politics."

Further, the e-mails show that on Feb. 4 David O'Leary, DHS Office of Legislative Affairs, wrote to David Gersten, acting deputy officer for programs and compliance in the agency's civil rights division:

"Gordon Lederman of Sen. Lieberman's Staff called me asking about the 2-day HSAC meeting last week with American Muslim and Arab groups. He was called by a reporter who told him MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and Muslim American Society 'rejected the ideas' of soliciting their help with countering violent extremism and were 'angry and indignant.'"

WND calls and e-mails to DHS, asking for an explanation of the e-mail that suggests prominent Muslim groups rejected the government's request for help in minimizing "violent extremism," were not returned.

"Please loop in proper … contacts and call me to discuss," the e-mail from O'Leary said.

Another e-mail in the string noted Napolitano had promised to the various Muslim leaders there would be "community participation" in an anti-violence extremism task force, that they would have access to regular, quarterly meetings with her, there would be a seminar on "cultural competency for DHS leadership" and there would be an "honest and full discussion of legitimate grievances from members of these communities about DHS policies that are ineffective and have a deleterious, humiliating impact on Muslim, Arab, Sikh and South Asian American communities. "


Judicial Watch noted one of the groups attending was the Islamic Society of North America, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the federal government in a plot by the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation to fund Hamas.

The report also said an internal DHS "talking points" memo stated, "Communicate that DHS understands the need for enhanced partnership with the Muslim, Sikh, South Asian and Arab groups, including those present at the meeting. … You should note the importance of sharing information from a policy perspective and on threats to specific Muslim, Arab, South Asian, and Sikh communities."

"I fail to see how consorting with radicals helps the DHS protect the United States," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Obama administration is bending over backward to cater to radical Muslim organizations in the name of political correctness.

"This is a dangerous political game that could put American citizens at risk. Some of these meeting participants have no business helping Janet Napolitano establish our homeland security policies," he said.

Among the names of the various lists of attendees were James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, Amardeep Singh of the Sikh Coalition, Deep Iyer of the South Asian Americans, Nawar Shor of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Hamad of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Michigan and Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America.

WND reported earlier when a Department of Homeland Security report warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increased federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. The report singled out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The April 7, 2009, report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," stated "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

Earlier in 2009, the Missouri Information Analysis Center issued a report that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism and warned law enforcement to watch for vehicles with bumper stickers promoting Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. It also warned police to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the release of the report caused him to review the procedures through which the report was released.

It had listed more than 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials and infrastructure targets.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC said police were "instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community."

The Missouri documents, according to ALIPAC, also said "potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!"

"When many of us read these Missouri Documents we felt that the false connections, pseudo research, and political attacks found in these documents could have been penned by the SPLC and ADL," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "We were shocked to see credible law enforcement agencies disseminating the same kind of over the top political propaganda distributed by these groups."

Bilderberg names- Cabal peeks out from shadows Group of world's elite finally discloses participants,

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist. Red Alert subscriptions are $99 a year or $9.95 per month for credit card users. Annual subscribers will receive a free autographed copy of "The Late Great USA," a book about the careful deceptions of a powerful elite who want to undermine our nation's sovereignty.

Finally, after years of exposure by news agencies such as WND and activists, the Bilderberg Group decided to go public with names of its chairman and steering committee, as well as giving the attendee list and agenda for its 2008, 2009 and 2010 meetings, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

The Bilderberg Group is an assembly of powerful elite – including insiders in politics, banking, business, military and media – invited annually to a private and protected meeting.

London's Guardian reported, "Until now, David Rockefeller's policy forum carried on quietly out of sight. It welcomed politicians (David Cameron in 2008, George Osborne 2006-2009) to strategize in secret with corporate heads, European realty and bank bosses."

"All that changed with intensified public exposure," Corsi noted.

(Story continues below)



Still, Corsi added, the new Bilderberg Group website is absent of the content of the meetings.

The topics discussed at the 2008, 2009 and 2010 meetings are published for the first time, but omitted are any policy papers submitted for discussion, any transcript of presentations given or notes on the comments or questions asked that would have given a feel of the discussion.

"The Bilderberg Group finally gives us an authoritative list of people and topics, but we are still blind as to the substance of the policy discussions," Corsi wrote. "Still, this is a first step and it shows that even a group as elite and secret as Bilderberg cannot forever withstand the light of public attention thrown upon it by those few journalists who refuse to be cowed by being cast as 'conspiracy theorists.'"


Hotel Dolce, location of June 2010 Bilderberg Group meeting in Sitges, Spain

The Bilderberg website disclosed that the June 3-10, 2010, meeting held in Sitges, Spain, discussed the following topics: "financial reform, cyber technology, energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, world food problem, global cooling, social networking, medical science, EU-US relations."

Corsi noted, "Among these topics, 'global cooling' jumps out, suggesting that perhaps among the world's elite there is beginning to be a tacit admission that the science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon-dioxide emissions was always and is now nothing more than junk science."

The website disclosed that of the approximately 130 participants, two-thirds were from Europe and balance from North America; about one-third were from government and politics, while two-thirds came from finance, industry, labor, education and communications.

For the official list of participants at the June 2010 meeting, read Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation."

Red Alert's author, who received a Ph.D. from Harvard in political science in 1972, is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and (with co-author John E. O'Neill) "Unfit for Command." He is also the author of several other books, including "America for Sale," "The Late Great U.S.A." and "Why Israel Can't Wait." In addition to serving as a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily, Corsi is a senior managing director in the financial-services group at Gilford Securities.

Disclosure: Gilford Securities, founded in 1979, is a full-service boutique investment firm headquartered in New York City providing an array of financial services to institutional and retail clients, from investment banking and equity research to retirement planning and wealth-management services. The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author are his alone and do not necessarily reflect Gilford Securities Incorporated's views, opinions, positions or strategies. Gilford Securities Incorporated makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability or validity of any information expressed herein and will not be liable for any errors, omissions or delays in this information or any losses, injuries or damages arising from its display or use.

For full immediate access to Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, subscribe now.

Midland Beach mosque voted down by church's board of trustees

TATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — The board of trustees for St. Margaret Mary’s R.C. Church has rejected a controversial proposal to sell its former convent to a group that would convert it to a mosque.

After nearly two months of emotionally-charged rallies and heated exchanges between members of the Muslim community and Midland Beach residents, the board said it has decided to side with the church’s pastor, the Rev. Keith Fennessy, who withdrew his support for the sale about a month ago.

“The trustees of the parish have met, as legally required under New York State law, and voted to ratify the pastor’s decision,” said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York. “The Muslim American Society has been informed that the sale of the convent will not take place. The Archdiocese of New York has enjoyed a good relationship with the Islamic community in the past, and looks forward to continued dialogue, friendship, and understanding in the future. It is also our prayer that unity will now return to the parish and to the Midland Beach community.”

The Archdiocese would not reveal the vote count, calling it a confidential matter.
How do you feel about the church board of trustees' vote against the mosque?
I'm glad! I didn't want it there anyway.
This is wrong! There was no reason for the mosque not to be built.
VoteView Results
Share This
Quantcast

Residents have been up in arms since May, after learning that Father Fennessy had entered into an agreement with MAS to sell the parish’s empty convent for $750,000. MAS planned to build a mosque and community center in the space.

Because the contract was drafted quietly, without input from residents, and because of traffic, parking and other concerns, hundreds of area residents have expressed their opposition to the plan. Many have also wondered whether MAS has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a foreign organization with alleged links to terrorism.

According to the contract between the church and MAS, the mosque could not be constructed without approval from the church’s board of trustees.

While awaiting the vote, the community grew increasingly divided: Midland Beach residents rallied for six weekends in a row in opposition to the mosque, while the Muslim community vowed to start an Islamic Civic Association, denouncing terrorism and promising to raise awareness about the religion.

Frequent Muslim Speaker to Kids in New York Schools Supports Hamas, Hezbollah

In communicating with Hassan Shibly, it’s hard to see why this frequent guest speaker at schools in New York would be embroiled in a controversy. He’s easy to converse with and kind. He passionately condemns terrorism (including the 9/11 attacks) and sings the praises of America. But shortly after January 10, when he gave nine presentations during his fourth visit to Clarence High School, he became part of a controversy when a mother of a student that listened to Shibly reported that he blamed the 9/11 attacks on U.S. foreign policy, specifically support for Israel. The mother later found out that he doesn’t consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist group. School officials defended Shibly in emails to the mother and he defends his position by saying it is backed by top political scientists.

Shibly says he has spoken to over 40 high school classes in New York. He claims that he only focuses on the basics of Islam and avoids discussion of political issues unless asked during the Q&A session. Shibly engaged in a back-and-forth with Nonie Darwish over what he was alleged to have said (it can be read here). He attributes the criticism of him by the mother and Darwish to an anti-Islam agenda. The mother says her 14-year old son lacks the political awareness to make up the statements he said Shibly made, and indeed, background research on Shibly does show that he has controversial beliefs that parents should be aware of.

Shibly is not shy about stating that “Hezbollah is absolutely not a terrorist organization.” Rather, he says the group is a “resistance movement” and “any war against them is illegitimate.” On his Facebook page, he posted an interview where Norman Finkelstein praises the group. In his extensive communication with me, he has refused to condemn Hamas as a whole or refer to them as a “terrorist” group, saying such labels are too simplistic and would write off the group as a peace partner that could be negotiated with. He instead condemned violence against innocent civilians by both Israel and Hamas, and said that he would not describe Israel as a “terrorist state” for the same reasons.

He compliments the late Syrian Sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro, the former grand mufti of Syria, for “speak[ing] out for the oppressed.” He links to Kuftaro’s website, and Shibly’s father has organized trips to the sheikh’s center in Syria. Although Shibly did not have a personal relationship with Kuftaro, that isn’t the case with his father. In 2002, Kuftaro had neo-Nazi William Baker as a speaker at his mosque, as well as Louis Farrakhan. In 2004, Kuftaro called on the world’s Muslims to “use all means possible to thwart the aggression, including martyr operations against the belligerent American, British and Zionist invaders,” and specifically mentioned Iraq as a place where Muslims should fight. He also held a meeting with Hamas leaders where he said all Muslims were required “to do jihad upon the Zionists.”

Shibly also praises Sheikh Rajab Deeb, a top disciple of Kuftaro’s. Deeb has called on Syria to obtain nuclear weapons and rails against the Jewish lobby in the U.S. Deeb holds a position in the Syrian regime, which is listed by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism. In May 2005, Deeb gave a sermon where he accused Jews of trying to “eradicate every race except their race.” Shibly said he was unaware of these statements and does not support them.

Shibly has received some attention for his lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, which has been dismissed. In 2004, he and others were detained at the Canadian border as they tried to re-enter the country from the Reviving the Islamic Spirit Conference in Toronto. He felt their detainment was based on the sole fact that they are Muslims, but the government said it “had credible intelligence that conferences similar to the one from which these individuals were leaving were being used by terrorist organizations to fundraise and to hide the travel of terrorists themselves.”

The mother of the student accuses Shibly of saying that the perpetrators of 9/11 were not Muslims, but he says this was taken out of context. He meant they were not acting as true Muslims and were motivated by politics, not religion or ideology. When questioned by me about who carried out the attacks, he said that al-Qaeda was “probably” behind them but he was unsure.

He cited three stories about how the U.S. supposedly lied to get involved in Vietnam, British operatives disguised as terrorists were arrested in Iraq after a clash with police, and Israeli agents were allegedly videotaping the attacks on the World Trade Center and cheering and were subsequently deported. Shibly also appears to court the idea that the U.S. is behind terrorism in Iraq to justify its presence. On July 16, 2009, he wrote on his Facebook page that “America does not (at least publicly) support Iraqi Suiccide [sic] Bombers.” He wrote in a December 9, 2007, note that “there is evidence that U.S. and UK are involved in instigating sectarian violence.”

On Shibly’s Facebook page, he also posted a link to a 9/11 conspiracy article with a comment from him calling the “9/11 Commission all lies [sic].” He defended himself by saying he doesn’t necessarily endorse the links he posts but is just trying to stir up discussion. He also lists himself as a “fan” of Khalid Yasin, a radical Muslim cleric who says the U.S. military invented AIDS, doesn’t believe al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11, and has been accused of engaging in fraud by an Australian newspaper. He also has various other ties to extremism. Shibly also linked to various lectures by Yasin, but says he was unaware of these other statements, which he disagrees with, and appreciated being informed of them. He is also a member of a Facebook group calling for the release of Sami al-Arian.

His Facebook and MySpace profiles act almost as a catalogue of complaints about U.S. and Israeli human rights abuses. He regularly condemns Israeli “state terrorism” and describes the country as an apartheid state. He told me that he wants each person in Israel to have one vote — a change that he surely knows would lead to the destruction of Israel. He posted an article by Alison Weir, of the virulently anti-Israel group “If Americans Knew,” accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and a litany of other heinous crimes while defending Helen Thomas in lieu of her recent controversy.

He wrote “I love these people” in reference to the Neturei Karta, an Orthodox Jewish group that seeks to end the state of Israel and supports Hamas and Ahmadinejad. Shibly has an article in a Facebook note titled “The grandchildren of Holocaust Survivors from World War II Are Doing to the Palestinians Exactly What Was Done to Them by Nazi Germany.” He also promotes anti-Israeli propaganda, linking to a music video that depicts the Israeli military as recklessly destroying a Palestinian town and posting a cartoon of an evil-looking Israeli soldier and helicopter massacring civilians.

Shibly told me that he feels that “people who are oppressed and occupied have the right to defend themselves so long as they too do not oppress.” When I asked him if this meant he supported attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, considering he believes they are occupiers, he said he did not support violence unless it is in “self-defense,” such as when someone is being raped or attacked.

His disdain for America’s foreign policy rivals his disdain for Israel. He gave a speech where he described the U.S. as acting as an imperialist, conquering other countries for their oil. He has linked to an article calling for the prosecution of President Bush as a war criminal. He has twice linked to a speech where a former soldier speaks out against “American terrorism,” saying it is being done at the behest of war profiteers and that racism in the military is used for imperialism. “We were told we were fighting terrorists. The real terrorist was me and the real terrorism was the occupation,” the speaker says. Shibly titles the link “Former American Terrorist Denounces American Terrorism.”

Shibly is to be commended for posting a note aimed at combating propaganda against U.S. soldiers, containing pictures of them playing with Iraqi children and other good acts showing the true nature of America. This was much later followed by a video of marines abusing a dog and later the posting of a segment promoting the incredibly biased WikiLeaks video depicting an alleged U.S. massacre of civilians in Iraq and a story about NATO killing pregnant women in Afghanistan.

“I do not believe the U.S. is in a war against Islam nor do I believe the U.S. is oppressive to Muslims domestically,” he assured me. On the other hand, he accused the FBI of “playing dirty” in reaction to this report and accused them of using informants in mosques to spread extremism based on this article. A video hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations portraying the death of Imam Abdullah as a murder based on an autopsy is also promoted, along with an article doubting the allegations against him. A video claiming that an innocent Muslim convert that is a pilot is now on the terrorist watch list was posted. It had the following sub-heading: “How Americans are making Muslims life [sic] as miserable as can be.” In another Facebook update, he posted a video reporting that American soldiers in Afghanistan were encouraged to talk about their religious beliefs, along with a comment about how it proves that the U.S. government “is engaged in a religious war.”

Shibly’s Facebook page says he “likes” the Council on American-Islamic Relations, where he previously interned. This organization is a Muslim Brotherhood front with ties to Hamas. It was labeled by the federal government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, which was found to be a front for Hamas. Shortly after the release of Muslim Mafia, a book meticulously documenting CAIR’s corruption and extremism, he linked to a Rachel Maddow segment mocking the reaction of members of Congress who were concerned about the organization’s attempts to place interns in government offices. Shibly also has linked to the website of the Islamic Relief Worldwide, which Israel accuses of being tied to Hamas.

When I spoke to him about his beliefs about democracy, he firmly said that he believed the U.S. should remain a secular democracy, but that he supported the establishment of sharia law for countries where Muslims are the majority. He warned me that true sharia law does not oppress minorities and doesn’t look like the tyrannical form we see today. On his Facebook page, he says that Islam mandates that women wear the niqab.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, the founder of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy and a devout Muslim, expressed concern over Clarence High School’s use of Shibly as a guest speaker in a letter to the board of Clarence Central School District dated May 10, 2010.

“I frankly have very deep problems with [his support for Hezbollah] as a Muslim and as an American,” Jasser wrote. He also pointed out that he is of Syrian origin and is “dismayed” at Shibly’s support for Sheikh Kuftaro.

“Mr. Shibly seems at times to support or work with Islamists who are leading advocates for political Islam. But when they become violent, he tries to distance himself with no corroborating public record to demonstrate a genuine ideological battle,” he wrote.

Dr. Khaleel Mohammed of San Diego State University also expressed concern about exposing students to Shibly, describing his ideas as “retrogressive,” particularly about not shaking hands with females.

“Those are not values that should be taught as part of Islam, and any person who purveys this sort of garbage in the name of ANY religion does a disservice to his religious community, but more so to the school district that has him speak,” Mohammed said.

According to an editorial in the Clarence Bee, which defends Shibly, the controversy has led to changes in the Clarence School District’s guest speaker policies. A 30-day advance notice will be given ahead of speakers deemed to be controversial and presentations will be recorded. In response to criticism about only hosting a Muslim speaker without alternate viewpoints or religions being represented, the school will consider having a panel instead.

Hassan Shibly staunchly denies accusations that he is soft on fighting extremism and terrorism, and the school’s officials staunchly defended him in their emails to the mother of the 14-year-old student. As a speaker, Shibly is put in a position of respect and credibility in front of impressionable students who can be influenced by his beliefs during the Q&A even if his main presentation is non-political. The community of Clarence, New York, needs to be aware of the man their school system is allowing to be presented as a representative of Muslims.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.
Email Print Podcasts Subscribe Digg PJM Home

Britain no longer has the cash to defend itself from every threat, says Liam Fox

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dr Fox said the dire state of the public finances meant the Armed Forces could no longer be equipped to cover every conceivable danger.

Since the Second World War, the nation has maintained a force that can conduct all-out warfare, counter-insurgencies such as in Afghanistan or medium scale campaigns like the Falklands or Sierra Leone.

Related Articles

*
Liam Fox: Armed Forces 'fleet numbers' will fall
*
UK defence industry 'must help Government cut costs'
*
Liam Fox: Senior officers face the axe
*
Liam Fox: There's a war on - someone tell Labour
*
Liam Fox: cuts could play 'fast and loose' with national security
*
Liam Fox under new pressure in fight to save Trident from cuts

But Dr Fox has given the strongest signal yet that it will have to give up one or more of these capabilities, which have been maintained at the same time as contributing to collective security pacts such as Nato. “We don’t have the money as a country to protect ourselves against every potential future threat,” he said. “We just don’t have it.”

The military had to be configured only for “realistic potential future threats”, he said, hinting at a substantial cut to conventional forces such as tanks and fighter aircraft.

“We have to look at where we think the real risks will come from, where the real threats will come from and we need to deal with that accordingly. The Russians are not going to come over the European plain any day soon,” he added.

Dr Fox’s frank admission also casts doubt on the future of the 25,000 troops currently stationed in Germany. The Defence Secretary has previously said that he hoped to withdraw them at some point, leaving Britain without a presence in the country for the first time since 1945.

“I would say, what do Challenger tanks in Germany and the costs of maintaining them and the personnel required to train for them, what does that contribute to what’s happening in Afghanistan?” he asked.

The Ministry of Defence is facing a substantial squeeze on resources, with indications that 30,000 servicemen may be sacrificed to meet the Government’s stringent review of departmental budgets.

Dr Fox signalled in a speech at Farnborough air show this week that Britain’s fleets of warships, fighters and armoured vehicles would be reduced because the MoD’s equipment programme was “entirely unaffordable”.

A National Audit Office report on Tuesday also found that the MoD was already £500 million over budget for the current financial year with “insufficient funds to meet planned expenditure”.

There has been growing speculation that the Army could be reduced by a quarter of its strength to 75,000 under the defence review.

But Dr Fox insisted that no troops would be made redundant until the fighting in Afghanistan was over.

“Everything that we might want to do with the Army will be constrained by what’s happening in Afghanistan,” he said.

“Any changes will have to be phased in. But with the Army in particular the difficulties come with how stretched we currently are providing forces in Afghanistan.”

He added: “I did not come into politics to see reductions in the Armed Forces but I also did not come into politics to see the destruction of the economy.”

He described as “nonsense” the idea that the Ministry of Defence would sacrifice personnel before equipment to make savings to a budget shortfall estimated at £36 billion over the next decade.

“I am not planning for any particular size for the Army,” Dr Fox said. “This idea that we are coming at the review with a particular size for the Army or the Navy or the Air Force is nonsense.”

In the last week Dr Fox has been fighting the Treasury to ensure that cash for the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent comes from outside the MoD’s core budget.

Asked if he would be prepared to resign if he did not get what he wanted, he said: “I am in the middle of complex negotiations and I am not in the business of megaphone diplomacy with the Treasury.

“The country is in an economic crisis, defence cannot be exempted from it.”

Despite the likelihood of a 20 per cent cut to the MoD’s £37 billion annual budget, he insisted that Britain would remain in the “first division” of armed forces alongside America.

“We have to keep sufficient land forces to hold territory if required, we have got to maintain enough maritime power and we have got to maintain air power to maintain air superiority.”

Dr Fox hopes that substantial savings can be found by renegotiating defence contracts. Companies supplying the MoD have been threatened with the loss of lucrative orders unless they lower prices.

“Either companies reduce the costs or we cancel whole projects,” he said. “Either we cut costs or cut programmes. The defence industry will understand that helping us over the short term will give them greater security over the longer term.”

It has been suggested that the Defence Secretary favours the Navy above the other two Services.

But Dr Fox criticised the fleet’s obsession with hi-tech ships such as the Type 45 destroyer, described by BAe Systems, its makers, as the most advanced warship of its kind, or Astute submarines.

“If I had a criticism of the Navy it is that it’s been too centred on a high specification end and not had sufficient platform numbers (ships) in a world that requires presence,” he explained.

He also questioned the number of different transport aircraft required by the RAF. It has a fleet of 36 Hercules, planes, seven C17 Globemasters and about 22 A400M transporters on order.

“Do we have to have all these different fleets or can we reduce them down?” Dr Fox asked.

“Fewer types means less training and fewer spare parts.” He admitted that for a political “hawk” the prospect of reducing the Forces was difficult.

“It is very difficult for someone like me who is a fiscal hawk and hawkish on defence policy to arrive here at a time when the previous government have bankrupted us,” Dr Fox said. “It is really difficult and we will have to make really hard choices.

“Labour have left us with such a car crash that next year the interest on the national debt will be nearly one and half times the defence budget. That is not sustainable.”

His Past was not looked into- there was no screening of candidate Obama

By Gamaliel Isaac
© 2010

One day in the 1990s, I received a phone call from a U.S. intelligence service that wanted to know information about a friend of mine who was applying to join them. One of the questions was whether he had an affair that could be used to blackmail him. At the time, our commander in chief was Bill Clinton. He was telling everyone: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." I thought, "This is absurd. Why do they bother checking my friend when the president of the United States, who has access to the most highly classified information, has a reputation for philandering."

What would have happened if our current president, Barack Hussein Obama, had to pass the screening criteria intelligence agents have to pass?

Interviewer: Mr. Obama, do you feel allegiance to the United States?

Obama: "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Interviewer: Why won't you wear a lapel pin with the American flag?

Obama: "You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

Interviewer: You were a member of the church of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, were you not?

Obama: "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."

Interviewer: Were you aware that he said God damn America and that he referred to the United States as the "U.S. of K.K.K.A."?

Obama: "The statements that Rev. Wright made ... were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

Interviewer: You went to his church for 20 years and you didn't hear him say such things?

Understand leftists' dedication to tyranny and tolerance of terror in Jamie Glazov's "United in Hate"

Obama: Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with."

Interviewer: There are those who say that you have connections to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.

Obama: Mr. Ayers is just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis."

Interviewer: Mr. Ayers held a fundraiser for you in his home and gave money for your campaign. He approved your appointment as chairman to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where you worked with him. He taught that children should be educated that America has a history of evil and racism and must be transformed. Do you believe that?

Obama: We "will transform America."

Interviewer: Before Mr. Ayers bombed the Pentagon he said, "Those bastards are finally going to get what is coming to them."

Obama: Mr. Ayers "engaged in despicable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old," and to suggest that "that reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

Interviewer: You and Mr. Ayers channeled fund money to the churches of Revs. Meeks, Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Meeks said house niggers were protecting the white man, and Rev. Pfleger defended Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright.

Obama: I left Trinity after Rev. Pfleger made those remarks. "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said at the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles."

Interviewer: Ayers is communist and Odinga pro-communist. Are you?

Obama: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Interviewer: America is facing a huge financial crisis resulting from years of spending borrowed money the country can't pay back. What policies do you believe are necessary to save the American economy?

Obama: We need to "spend our way out" of the recession and build windmills.

Interviewer: We have information that in 2006 you went to Kenya and campaigned for Raila Odinga, a pro-communist candidate running against Nairobi's pro-American government. Why did you do that?

Obama: "If the people cannot trust the government to do the job for which it exists, to protect them and promote their common welfare, all else is lost."

Interviewer: Are you aware that in exchange for Muslim support Odinga agreed to:

* rewrite the national constitution to install Shariah as the law in all "Muslim declared regions";

* elevate Islam as "the only true religion" and give Islamic leaders an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions";

* adopt Islamic dress codes for women.

Obama: Islam is "a great religion." In the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. I'm working hard to change that.

Interviewer: Do you mean that the United States should not have closed down Muslim charities that funnel money to terrorists?

Obama: Those who wish to give charity to their Muslim brothers should be able to do so.

Interviewer: After Mr. Odinga lost the election, he said the vote was rigged and incited his supporters to riot. As a result, Muslims set churches ablaze and hacked Christians to death.

You argued that to end the attacks by Mr. Odinga's supporters, he should be given a position in the Kenyan government. Do you believe that rewarding violence and appeasement is the way to make peace?

(Column continues below)



Obama: This is the "politics of fear." "I have never supported engagement with terrorists."

Interviewer: Give yourself some credit! You argued we should engage jihad-supporting Iran. Mr. Odinga signed a pact with Muslims saying that Shariah law would govern Kenya. Do you think Shariah law should govern the United States?

Obama: "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation."

Interviewer: Dear brother Hussein, you have passed the security clearance. You are our best chance to bring Khalifah to America if you don't bankrupt it first, God willing. May Allah spread confusion in the Kuffar infidel mind, and may you be the next president of the United States!

Latinos seek to defend Arizona law Statute 'simply allows officers to question those already stopped for probable cause'

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

TUCSON, AZ - JUNE 03: A suspected gang member is detained by Tucson Police following a fight June 3, 2010 in Tucson, Arizona. The Tucson Police Department is currently gearing up to begin training its officers on the implementation of the state s controversial new immigration law SB 1070. Among other issues the new law makes it a state crime to be an 'unauthorized alien' or to knowingly harbor, hire or transport an unauthorized alien. A Tucson police officer was one of the first to file suit in federal court challenging the new law. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

A team of Latinos in Arizona is asking a federal court for permission to defend their state's new immigration law, which is under attack by the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, the author of the law, scheduled to take effect in days, is asking a judge to allow it to be enforced even while federal lawyers argue the state has usurped the federal government's role in enforcing immigration.

The dispute over Arizona's law, which already is being copied in proposals by other states, is heating up as hearings on the court challenges to the plan begin. The law simply allows officers to ask people already stopped for other reasons to verify their immigration status.

The authors have argued Arizona is facing an unsustainable burden from illegal immigrants, and when Washington refused to act on the violations of federal law, the state took on the responsibility itself.

The first hearing in one police officer's complaint already has been held without a ruling from the judge. Other cases are pending, including the U.S. Justice Department's lawsuit against the state.



Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, is filing a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit on behalf of the Arizona Republican Latino Association.

He said the request marks the first time a group of Latino-Americans has come forward legally to support the new law.

"People of Latin descent, who immigrated here legally, have added a great deal to the culture and heritage of our nation. They are hard working, believe in family values, and are proud to be Americans. They must be respected as fellow Americans," he said.

"I have been troubled by some in the 'anti-illegal immigration movement,' who have played the 'race card' in their efforts to secure our borders. Indeed, there are public interest groups and others who play this card to raise money. While the immigration issue is a legitimate and very important one, and the Arizona law a commendable and necessary effort to secure our borders, this intervention by Latino-Americans is historic, since it shows that the issue is 'one for all' concerned Americans," he said.

State Sen. Russell Pearce

"I am proud to represent the Latin community in upholding the Arizona law, which simply allows law enforcement to question those already stopped for 'probable cause' to question them as to their immigration status. This is no more than the law already allows," he said.

Judicial Watch, which earlier announced it is representing Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, an author of the bill, said it is asking the federal court to allow the law to take effect on schedule July 29.

The public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption said the memorandum has been filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona opposing the government's motion for preliminary injunction.

The government is seeking to prevent provisions of the law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect.

Pearce's memorandum, filed with the court, noted the precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is clear.

"In 1983, [the court] held that nothing in federal law precludes a city from enforcing the criminal provisions of immigration law," it said. "By enacting Senate Bill 1070 … the Arizona legislature simply codified already existing enforcement provisions of federal law that has been the law of the land in some regard for more than 50 years."

The law was signed into effect April 23 by Gov. Jan Brewer.

"As I've said all along, SB 1070 makes no new immigration law, it simply enforces the laws already on the books," Pearce said. "Barack Obama has put politics before the safety of citizens of Arizona who are under the gun from the illegal alien crisis in our state.

"I refuse to apologize for standing up for America and the rule of law," he said. "I hope the court does not allow the Obama administration to run roughshod over the rule of law."

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the claims submitted by the Justice Department in its court action against Arizona have nothing to do with the "rule of law."

"The Obama White House is desperate to kill this law because the president knows if it is allowed to stand, other states will follow suit, and the federal government may finally have to do its job and secure the border. And securing the border is something President Obama is loath to do," Fitton said.

"President Obama and his appointee Eric Holder are letting politics get in the way of enforcing the law. Let's hope, for the sake of Arizona and the sake of the country, the court allows this immigration law to take effect next week."

Further, according to the American Center for Law and Justice, a friend-of-the-court brief has been submitted on behalf of more than 80 members of Congress who are supporting Arizona's law.

"It is very clear that Arizona's law regulating immigration is both sound and constitutional," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the organization. "What is equally clear is that the Obama administration is overstepping its constitutional authority in its legal challenge of the Arizona law."

He continued, "The American taxpayer would be better served if the federal government concentrated its efforts on securing our borders instead of pursuing a faulty legal course. Arizona has a constitutional right to regulate immigration in conformance with federal law. The federal government's suit represents nothing more than a constitutional overreach and seeks to elevate the executive branch's discretionary power of enforcement to trump mandatory aspects of laws passed by Congress enabling the states to act on matters of immigration enforcement."

Sekulow said while Congress has "plenary powers over immigration law," the state's new provision "does not interfere with U.S. foreign policy goals as prescribed by Congress," even though the Obama administration claims it does