Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Obama reveals his character by withholding birth records

By Monte Kuligowski

Constitutional scholar and Notre Dame Law School professor emeritus, Charles Rice, takes no position on the venue of Barack Obama's birthplace in his recent piece on the eligibility question. Rice simply notes that Obama has presented inconclusive evidence and suggests that Congress should investigate using its subpoena power. "It is fair to say," writes Rice, "that the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution."

Professor Rice also relays what many understand but are afraid to say:

"If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world. As long as Obama refuses to disclose the records, speculation will grow and grow without any necessary relation to the truth. The first step toward resolving the issue is full discovery and disclosure of the facts."

For those who don't know, Hawaii had lax birth registration laws in 1961. Bare-bones certifications, similar to what the Daily Kos and the Obama campaign posted online in 2008 were issued by the Department of Health on application for a number of reasons, including claims of at-home births.

Over the years two Honolulu hospitals have been named as the nativity site for President Obama. At this point, the in vogue position is that Kapi'olani is the birth hospital. Yet to date, Obama has released no records showing his hospital of birth and attending physician. It is a fact that detailed birth certificates were generated for babies born in Honolulu hospitals in 1961. And with Mr. Obama's consent the details would be known immediately.

The so-called birthers and a host of other people would simply like to see Obama's birth records. Army officer Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is currently serving a six month prison sentence because he requested the release of Obama's detailed birth certificate before obeying presidential orders which would endanger life and limb.

Col. Lakin mistakenly believed that a U.S. birth alone meets the requirements of the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" clause. Missing from Lakin's viewpoint was the fact that many scholars assert that the natural born clause requires U.S. citizen parents at the time of a presidential candidate's birth — in order to ensure an unbroken chain of undivided natural allegiance to the United States. Nevertheless, Col. Lakin would have been satisfied with mere observation of Obama's detailed birth records.

But apparently that was too much to ask.

A report by ABC News frames Obama's secrecy issue in a way that suggests releasing basic records is sort of beneath Obama:

"The administration has been reluctant to be seen as bowing to politically motivated extremists whose views are not substantiated. As a citizen, Obama is also entitled to privacy rights under the law."

Releasing basic records is "bowing?" Obama doesn't want to bow to "extremists?" Considering that Obama is a public servant who promised "unprecedented transparency," the entitlement to privacy defense couldn't be more misplaced — especially when the so-called private information is a part of proving constitutional eligibility. Incidentally, the media should know that the burden is not on the public to "substantiate" anything.

Since we know that there is something in the vital records to be released, thanks to Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie, Mr. Obama appears to be engaging in a game of chicken with the American people.

Even if Obama for some reason feels that he's above releasing his basic records (odd position to take for an elected federal worker who answers to the people), there comes a point when a reasonable person lets it go.

Like maybe when a decorated U.S. Army officer is about to be jailed for simply wanting to see detailed birth records to ensure the authority of the one giving military orders. At that point common decency would tend to cause one to relent and say: "here it is; I have nothing to hide."

Professor Rice notes that "the citizens whom the media and political pundits dismiss as 'birthers' have raised legitimate questions. That legitimacy is fueled by Obama's curious, even bizarre, refusal to consent to the release of the relevant records."

Mr. Obama's willingness to allow Col. Lakin to suffer the pain of imprisonment for asking for reasonable proof is more than "curious" or "bizarre," it is inexcusable — and heartless.

According to polling numbers, most voters supposedly "personally like" Obama while disapproving his "job performance." That tells me a fair number of people haven't thought through what Obama's refusal to release basic records says about Obama's character.

Note to future poll respondents: Mr. Obama's unprecedented secrecy, unrelenting arrogance and aloofness to the suffering of anyone who requests details are not "personally" likable traits. And those traits apply if we give Obama the benefit of the doubt on the claimed birthplace. God help us all if he turns out to be a complete fraud.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Don't overstate anti-Muslim bias

CNN allows a rare voice of common sense to break through amid its recent barrage of Islamic victimhood posturing stories and Islamic supremacist propaganda. "Don't overstate anti-Muslim bias," by William J. Bennett and Seth Leibsohn for CNN, March 26 (thanks to AINA):

(CNN) -- Almost two weeks after the House Homeland Security Committee hearing on radicalization in the Muslim community in America, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin has announced he will hold a hearing in the Senate. But, rather than focus on the problem of radicalization in the Muslim community, Durbin's panel will be directed to another subject: anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States.

Senator Durbin has said anti-Islamic sentiment in America is on the rise and that, "It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights." The hearing, scheduled for next week, follows a CNN special to air this Sunday, "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door." [...]

Despite what may have gone on in Murfreesboro with the mosque its adherents have wanted to build, the larger story of anti-Islamic bias in America does not hold water.

Let's start with the national numbers: 8.4 percent of religious hate crimes in America were anti-Muslim in 2009 (the most recent date for which statistics are available). By contrast, that same year, nearly 72 percent of religious hate crimes in America were anti-Jewish (Muslims in America faced 107 incidents of bias in 2009; Jews faced 931).

This pattern has remained fairly consistent over the past decade. For example, in 2002, 10.5 percent of the religious bias crimes in America were anti-Muslim while 65% were anti-Jewish; in 2006 (just to pick another post- 9/11/2001 year), 11.9 percent of the religious bias crimes in America were anti-Muslim while 65.4 percent were anti-Jewish. (It is worth noting here that exact statistics on the Muslim population in America are hard to assess -- estimates range from 2.6 million to 7 million, a number President Obama cited -- the Jewish population is generally agreed upon at about 6.5 million). [...]

So what is that larger story? Bigotry is, of course, abhorrent. But given that America has been targeted by a great deal of terrorism in the name of Islam over the past decade -- targeted by terrorists who say they are acting in the name of Islam -- America has not over-reacted in a wave of anti-Muslim bigotry.

Whatever may be the case in Murfreesboro, notice the rest of the story out of Tennessee: Muslim leaders in cities from Chattanooga to Knoxville to Memphis say they have "experienced no hostility."...

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Well said comment about our Chinese "partners"

Comment by Gregory Kyle 6 hours ago

The Chinese will never be able to govern the world like the west because they lack the cultural infrastructure. They are racist and fiercely protective of their culture and identity. They have the mentality that it is their way or the highway: They are super-nationalists. Though I used the term "racist", it was not meant in the negative sense that word usually evokes.

Mainland Chinese prefer to marry their own as opposed to 'outlanders'. They prefer anything labeled "Chinese" to be made, or run, by the Chinese people. Due to this entrenched nationalism and the racism it spawns, combined with their insular culture, they would be an ineffective 'world ruler'. Their centralized command structure is great for a single nation so accustomed thereto, but woefully inadequate for the governance of a very diverse planet.

Indeed, if the western world were to relax it's increasingly confiscatory economic policies; facilitating the return of its industries, China would fall like a big, fat, slothful dragon. Their lack of freedom and individual liberties renders them wholly dependent upon the theft of others' achievements.

However, stability is an ideal concept which they seem to manage nicely in their own country, but hardly pragmatic in today's world. Indeed, the rest of the world will not long tolerate such authoritarianism. China will ascend a bit longer before they reach their zenith. After that, their fall will be even greater than America's. Their stop at the top will be a lot shorter than ours as well because of their cultural infrastructure.

The west will have lost its way because of the abandonment of its cultural infrastructure; The Chinese will lose their way because of their lack of cultural infrastructure. Kinda reminds me of the yin and yang thing.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Saul Alinsky tactics evident in Wisconsin protests

Bill Bumpas - OneNewsNow - 3/15/2011

While protests continue in Wisconsin over new collective bargaining restrictions that were signed into law last week by Governor Scott Walker, there's a critical aspect of the debate that has seemingly gone unnoticed -- forced unionism.



Gary Beckner (exec. dir. of AAE)Collective bargaining is not a right but a service, says Gary Beckner, executive director of the Association of American Educators, the largest national non-union professional teachers association. He tells OneNewsNow the unions are fighting so hard to preserve forced unions because they want to "keep their cash cow alive."

"I mean the point is now if teachers realize that they don't have to pay dues to the union, they might start to look for professional alternatives to provide the kinds of benefits and services that they felt like they had to pay the union for in the first place," he shares. "And that's what really scares the union -- that's what's causing this battle."

And this battle, Beckner argues, is not a grass-roots effort. Instead, he says, it is "a very orchestrated demonstration" taken right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals handbook.

"Saul, by the way, actually trained the old guard union leadership at the [National Education Association]," he explains. "And his idea is always to demonize your perceived enemy -- in this case it's Governor Walker -- and to convince your members -- in this case union members -- that you are the only organization that really cares about them. It's a classic 'you and me against the world' tactic."

Beckner says the battle is not over, suspecting that there could be some lawsuits filed by the unions.

The unions in Wisconsin, in fact, are getting some help from their secretary of state. Doug La Follette said yesterday he has decided to delay publication of the new law signed by Governor Walker in order to give local governments the maximum amount of time possible to reach agreements with teachers unions. The law allows him up to ten days after a bill is signed into law. That would be March 25.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Another Presidential change to our Constitution

The U.S. Secretary of Defense yesterday announced that he's agreed to a plan that will allow one military commander to be in charge of both State National Guard and each military branch's reserve forces when they are deployed to respond to domestic emergencies including terrorist attacks, according to Lisa Daniel of the American Forces Press Service.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, along with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and the Council of Governors -- a group President Barack Obama formed in January 2010 to represent all of the states' governors -- signed off on the agreement, known as the Joint Action Plan, during a March 1 Pentagon meeting, Ms. Daniel reported in a statement obtained by the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police.

According to the White House press office, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard units of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

Paul N. Stockton, assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, today called the agreement "a breakthrough" in the military's ability to effectively respond to domestic emergencies, whether natural or manmade.

"This will be much more efficient, much more effective, and it will be a partnership that never existed before," Stockton said.

However, some conservatives and libertarians believe this is not a plan to be celebrated, but one that should be closely examined on many levels including the constitutionality of having military forces operating within the United States.

"The plan may sound good on its surface, but it brings up a lot of questions by law enforcement officials and other first responders (firefighters, emergency medical personnel, etc.)," said former police lieutenant Steve Rodgers, who has headed homeland security operations.

The plan creates a dual-status commander for each state, approved by the president and governor, to have simultaneous authority over both National Guard and reserve forces called up to respond to a state emergency, Secretary Stockton said.

According to Stockton, Under the U.S. Constitution, National Guard forces must be under state control for domestic events, and reservists and any active-duty forces must remain in federal control. The dual-status commanders can operate in both the state and federal chains of command without legal changes.

In fact, he added, dual-status commanders have been used before for domestic events that are planned months in advance, such as political party conventions.

State and federal officials realized through the response to Hurricane Katrina, which killed thousands of people and destroyed much of the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts in August 2005, as well as in other natural disasters, that better coordination is needed in emergencies, he said.

"During Katrina, leadership didn't have an understanding of what was happening on the ground," Stockton said. "We need a better common operating picture of where the units are, their level of readiness, their response capabilities."

Commanders also need to know the local area, he said, such as roadway and building capacities.

"This is a whole new way to bring life-saving capabilities to bear," Stockton said. "Those first 72 hours are precious for saving lives."

The Joint Action Plan will provide uniformity to plans that vary greatly from state to state, he said, and all dual-status commanders are expected to be appointed and trained by early fall. More than 30 dual-status commanders already have been chosen in key locations, he said.

"That commander is the nexus, the coordinating person to ensure that forces work in collaboration," he said.

A second aspect of the agreement calls for a legislative change to give the president the authority to call up reservists for domestic emergencies -- a change Stockton said is needed to streamline the process.

Currently, if federal forces are needed to augment the Guard, a governor must make the request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, part of the Homeland Security Department, then FEMA must seek the assistance through U.S. Northern Command, which oversees North America and will oversee dual-status commander training, Stockton said.

Most dual-status commanders likely will be National Guard officers with a distinguished record of command experience, he said.

However, nothing was mentioned regarding the "rules of engagement" by guardsmen and reservists during a state of emergency. The lack of substantial information on acceptable and unacceptable actions may create controversy as this plan is promulgated to state and local police and security agencies.

"When the Katrina crisis occurred, the feds thought it more important to collect guns from law-abiding citizens than trying to help those people and protect them," said NYPD Det. Mike Snopes.

"Personally, this latest announcement is disturbing and I doubt it would be acceptable to the news media and Democrats if the Bush Administration had proposed it," he said.

OBAMA'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS

Although the mainstream media covers most legislation being debated on the floors of both houses of the US Congress, it is the presidential executive orders that are implemented with enormous impact on the lives of American citizens that should be exposed.

For example, in January 2010 President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order thereby creating a Council of Governors to create a working relationship between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect the United States against all types of hazards.

The Council is being touted as a bipartisan endeavor that will be comprised of 10 governors from various states who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms. In selecting the governors to the Council, the White House will solicit input from governors and Governors’ associations. Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the nation as a whole.

"While selected governors will be either Democrats or Republicans, there are no provisions to make certain conservatives and progressives are evenly represented," said political strategist Mike Baker.

The federal government members of the Council includes the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command (NORCOM) Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau within the US Defense Department. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.

The formation of the Council of Governors was required by Section 1822 of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which states, “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.”



"While the rationale for using the US military domestically had been debated for years, President Barack Obama appears intent on using our military at least until he can create his promised 'Civilian Security Force' which he promised would be as big and powerful as the military," said political strategist Mike Baker.

By Jim Kouri

Law Enforcement Examiner

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Muslim groups like CAIR, ISNA, and MAS, not Rep. King, are responsible for fomenting hysteria

Steven Emerson: Muslim groups like CAIR, ISNA, and MAS, not Rep. King, are responsible for fomenting hysteria

Emerson observes: "The real underlying story here is how the self-anointed leadership of the Muslim community ... are the ones responsible for instilling panic into the Muslim community by suggesting that these hearings will lead to 'hate crimes' against Muslims."

That has indeed become the preferred tactic in recent years: deflecting attention by appropriating victim status from actual or intended victims of jihadist terrorism, and attempting to silence the discussion by acting as though any portrayal of Islam in even a potentially negative light amounts to inciting hate crimes.

There is one small cause for optimism: the prospect that groups like CAIR have shown themselves to be so paranoid and obnoxious in their denunciation of King's hearings, that more people are noticing, and wondering if perhaps they doth protest too much.
"Muslim American groups, not Rep. Pete King, are the ones fomenting hysteria with hearings on tap," by Steven Emerson for the New York Daily News, March 10:

Never in my entire career in Washington have I encountered the hype and scare tactics of those opposing the hearings into Islamic radicalization by Rep. Pete King. A classic example was a headline on MSNBC.com: "Inquiry by congressional committee looks like inquisition to many Muslims."

"Witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" have also popped up.

The line of attack is now familiar: If King (R-L.I.) were truly interested in violent extremism, his hearings would focus on a wide range of groups that wreak havoc on America, including neo-Nazis and others; by focusing solely on Muslim extremism, the argument goes, he is betraying his bias.

This is utterly ridiculous. Our organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, recently did an analysis of all terrorism convictions based on statistics released by the Justice Department. These stats show that more than 80% of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism since 9/11 involve defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda. Though Muslims represent less than 1% of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases the Justice Department lists.

The figures confirm that there is a disproportionate problem of Islamic militancy and terrorism among the American Muslim population.

This is not to say that, on a percentage basis, American Muslims tend to be violent or extremist. To the contrary. Those involved in terrorism are a tiny sliver of the overall Muslim American population.

But one ought to be able to focus on a very real problem - homegrown terrorism fueled by Muslim extremism - without being accused of painting the entire U.S. Muslim population with a broad brush.

The real underlying story here is how the self-anointed leadership of the Muslim community - groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim American Society - are the ones responsible for instilling panic into the Muslim community by suggesting that these hearings will lead to "hate crimes" against Muslims.

That canard has been used by these groups for years in their attempts to intimidate the media, commentators and critics of radical Islam from truly analyzing the role of these groups and others in radicalizing their constituents in the American Muslim community. The documents showing the creation of these groups with the assistance of the Muslim Brotherhood were introduced into evidence in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development several years ago. At the trial, the Council on American-Islamic Relations was described by an FBI expert as a front for Hamas, and was also listed, together with the Islamic Society of North America, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation indictments.

Groups such as these routinely play the "Islamophobia" card, and get attention for doing so in the mainstream media, in order to silence criticism of Islamic radicalism. In fact, these very same groups, just like the Obama administration, categorically refuse to even use the term "radical Islam" in order to excise the term from the American vernacular.

Critics have taken issue with King's focus on one religious minority. But, in fact, in previous years, Congress has held numerous hearings into various ethnic subcultures that have spawned illegalities - including the Italian mob, Hispanic drug cartels, black and white prison gangs, white racists and neo-Nazis.

Headlines about King producing "panic" in the rank-and-file Muslim community are nonsense. The only panic is that being strategically fomented by groups with an interest in spreading fear. They, together with their mainstream media friends, have falsely alleged that: one, there is a war against Islam by the United States, and two, the FBI is secretly instigating Islamic terrorism by use of informants.

These are dangerous fictions.