July 21st, 2014
By Bob Unruh
Six years after the first lawsuits were filed alleging Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president, a new poll indicates nearly one-quarter of American adults don’t even believe he’s a U.S. citizen, let alone a “natural-born citizen,” and another 17 percent are unsure.
Rasmussen Reports found 41 percent of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, a belief shared by 21 percent of those who are unaffiliated and 11 percent of Democrats.
“Just over 20 percent of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only 7 percent of those in the president’s party share that doubt,” the polling organization said in a report titled “Have We Got A Conspiracy for You – 9/11? JFK? Obama’s Citizenship?”
Overall, 23 percent said the theory that Obama is not an American citizen is true, and another 17 percent said they weren’t sure. Sixty percent reject the theory as false.
The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural-born citizen” but does not define the term. Scholarly works cited by the Founders defined it as a citizen at birth by virtue of being born in the country to two citizens of the country, or merely the offspring of two citizens of the country. The birth certificate Obama displayed on the White House website, which declares he was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father, has been found to be fraudulent by an investigation authorized by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted July 16-17 with a sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points and a 95 percent level of confidence.
The survey ask for responses regarding “the world’s best-known conspiracy theories” regarding JFK’s assassination, the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Princess Diana, UFOs in Roswell, Paul McCartney and the AIDS virus.
While no state or federal judge allowed the presidential eligibility issue to be resolved in court, rejecting most cases out of hand, two members of the Alabama Supreme Court asserted it needs to be addressed.
While the majority in a 7-2 decision on a dispute over Obama’s eligibility issued “no opinion,” Justice Tom Parker and Chief Justice Roy Moore concluded the allegations have serious constitutional significance warranting an investigation of the qualifications of 2012 presidential candidates by Alabama’s secretary of state.
Moore wrote in his dissent that the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs’ request to order the state secretary of state “to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.”
“Although the removal of a president-elect or a president who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function,” Moore argued.
He said the case was of “great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land.”
“Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, (Hugh) McInnish and (Virgil) Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.”
Parker agreed with Moore’s reasoning, except that he would call for the secretary of state to investigate eligibility issues once she “has received notice that a potential candidate may lack the necessary qualifications to be placed on an Alabama election ballot.”
Both justices had expressed concern about the issue.
Parker had filed a special, unpublished concurrence in an earlier court ruling, arguing that plaintiff Hugh McInnish’s charge of “forgery” was legitimate cause for concern.
“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public,” he wrote.
Moore, in an interview with WND in 2010, defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
Lakin was stripped of his rank and removed from the military when he demanded to see evidence that Obama was a legitimate commander in chief of the military before carrying out deployment orders. He reasoned the orders would be illegal if Obama was not eligible to be president.
At the time, Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
In the 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and considerable evidence that suggests he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
Moore explained that the Alabama case did not request a judicial determination of Obama’s eligibility but an order that the elections officials in the state assure voters that candidates were eligible under the law.
July 21st, 2014
AUSTIN, Texas – Gov. Rick Perry said Monday he is deploying up to 1,000 National Guard troops over the next month to the Texas-Mexico border to combat criminals that Republican state leaders say are exploiting a surge of children and families entering the U.S. illegally.
Perry, a vocal critic of the White House's response to the border crisis -- and who is mulling a second presidential run in 2016 -- said the state has a responsibility to act after "lip service" from the federal government.
He rejected suggestions that Texas was militarizing local communities by putting National Guard troops on the ground or that crime data along the border doesn't justify additional resources.
The deployment will cost Texas an estimated $12 million a month. Texas Adjutant General John Nichols said his troops would simply be "referring and deterring" immigrants and not detaining people -- though Nichols said the National Guard could if asked.
"We think they'll come to us and say, `Please take us to a Border Patrol station," Nichols said.
More than 3,000 Border Patrol agents currently work in the region, and Perry has repeatedly asked Obama to send the National Guard to the border. Much of the area has been overwhelmed in recent months by tens of thousands of unaccompanied children illegally entering the U.S.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection didn't respond to a request for comment Monday.
As governor, Perry is commander in chief of Texas military forces unless those forces have already been mobilized by the White House. But if Perry deploys National Guard troops it is up to Texas to pay for them, while an order from Obama would mean Washington picks up the tab.
"Gov. Perry has referred repeatedly to his desire to make a symbolic statement to the people of Central America that the border is closed," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. "And he thinks that the best way to do that is to send 1,000 National Guard troops to the border. It seems to me that a much more powerful symbol would be the bipartisan passage of legislation that would actually make a historic investment in border security and send an additional 20,000 personnel to the border."
Earnest also said the White House hasn't received the kind of "formal communication" with Perry's office that usually accompanies such deployments.
President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in 2006, and Obama eventually extended that deployment while ordering a second wave of National Guard forces to Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico in 2010. But the second round saw reduced numbers of troops, and most of their work was limited to air patrols in counterdrug operations.
Perry announced last month that Texas would steer another $1.3 million each week to the Department of Public Safety to assist in border security through at least the end of the year. In a letter to Obama on June 20, Perry made several requests for help along the border, including 1,000 National Guard troops, additional helicopters and giving troops "arrest powers to support Border Patrol operations until sufficient Border Patrol resources can be hired, trained and deployed to the border."
It's not clear why Perry would need the Obama administration to authorize arrest powers and the governor's office has not offered details ahead of the announcement. Texas law simply states that the governor can "adopt rules and regulations governing enlistment, organization, administration" of the Texas State Guard.
In a White House letter to Perry on July 7, Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett laid out steps the administration was taking to deal with what the president had called an "urgent humanitarian situation," but did not mention the National Guard. Obama met with Perry two days later in Dallas, and the administration has worked with Mexico and other countries the immigrants are leaving to make it clear they will not be allowed to stay in the U.S.
On previous border deployments, National Guard soldiers have served in support roles -- administrative, intelligence gathering -- while the Border Patrol expanded its ranks. Some National Guard troops already participate in counter-drug operations on the border, though they don't have arrest powers.
Since October, more than 57,000 unaccompanied children and teenagers have entered the U.S. illegally -- more than double compared to the same period a year earlier. Most have been from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, where rampant gang violence and intense poverty have driven tens of thousands of people outside their borders.
Their numbers overwhelmed Border Patrol facilities in the Rio Grande Valley, leading Perry and the Texas Department of Public Safety to argue that Border Patrol agents distracted by groups of children and families were leaving gaps.
Most of those children have been turning themselves in to the first person in a uniform they see.
More from Fox News
How Sam's Club Card Changes Affect Business Users (Fox Business - Personal Finance)
Jackson to Obama: $4B for illegals' kids, what about ours? (Video - Politics)
July 21st, 2014
A young Dutchman posted this picture of the soon to be downed Malaysian flight shortly before he boarded , writing:
"If it should disappear, this is what it looks like."
The Dutchman posted the pic as a sarcastic reference to the Malaysian Airlines flight that mysteriously disappeared over the Indian Ocean in March, and remains missing to this day....
By Barry Secrest
With about 100 major airline carriers across the world (those carrying about 10 million passengers per year) how is it that only one comparatively diminutive carrier could actually have two catastrophic losses in the same year, within only four months apart?
Even worse, both disasters are mired in controversies the likes of which haven't been seen for perhaps a generation or longer.
So, has Malaysian Airlines been cursed or is there something else at work?
Skytrax, an industry monitor which considers itself the global benchmark of airline excellence, rather dubiously awarded Malaysian Airlines the distinction of being ranked as the 14th best airline in the world in 2013, with Emirates not unsurprisingly being ranked as first. Duly noting the fact that Malayasian Air, since 1977 has now reached "Ace" status, with its number of in- air aircraft kills totaling five as of the MH17 crash, not withstanding a daunting 671 souls lost over the company's history.
All of these facts, when taken together, and when noting that there are over 100,000 world-wide commercial airlines flights per day among at least 250 carriers leaves us with a subset of staggering odds. How is it possible that the last two major air disasters involved only one company? With over 1.2 million passenger jet flights over a 120 day period, what are the probabilities involved with (2) major disasters occurring with the same exact carrier? The odds are well beyond staggering, especially when pointing out that each of these statistics double if we take into account air transport carriers and their number of flights.
July 20th, 2014
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced a resolution calling on border state governors to deploy the National Guard to stop the influx of illegal immigrants, since Pres. Obama "never will."
Announcing H. Res. 675, Rep. King called the flood of illegal immigrants a "presidential-caused crisis":
"There is nothing in President Obama's $3.7 billion request that secures our border. Even though this President has the power to close the border, I know that he never will. In fact, he refuses to do so.
"The American people must understand that this surge in illegals coming across our border is a presidential-caused crisis. This President's lawless actions such as DACA have caused this nightmare. These actions clearly demonstrate that he is not bound by the Constitution and will not take seriously his obligation to defend our sovereign borders.
"This crisis is devastating our communities and putting the burden on American taxpayers. Right now there is an incentive for illegals to continue to pour across our border, and the only way to discourage them is to seal our border and send them back. Therefore we call upon the southern border Governors to call up their National Guard units to secure the border. This resolution also commits the United States House to funding the states for the cost of securing our border. These are the only supplemental appropriations the House should be considering."
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), a co-sponsor of the resolution, said that deploying the National Guard "sends a clear message" to illegal immigrants:
July 20th, 2014
A 125 year-old Christian College in Massachusetts Faces losing government accreditation due to it's adherence to the Biblical teachings in the Old and New Testament, as a result of Obama's recent edicts....
Written by Dave Bohon
A small Christian college in Massachusetts is having its long-time accreditation reviewed after its president joined over a dozen religious leaders in penning a letter to President Obama requesting a religious exemption to a planned executive order banning organizations that do business or receive funding from the federal government from discriminating against homosexuals in hiring or services.
Gordon College president D. Michael Lindsay was one of 14 religious leaders who signed the letter to Obama appealing for an exemption for religious institutions from the president's expected executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. “Without a robust religious exemption … this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity, and religious freedom,” reads the letter, which was sent to the White House the day after the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision exempting closely held companies from the ObamaCare mandate requiring employees to provide workers with free contraception, including contraceptives that can cause abortion.
The letter's signers — which included the head of Catholic Charities USA, the executive editor of the magazine Christianity Today, and leading evangelical pastor Rick Warren — insisted that they do not approve of discrimination, writing that they believe “all persons are created in the divine image of the creator, and are worthy of respect and love, without exception.
The Boston Globe reported that the New England Association of Schools and Colleges’ (NEASC) Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, the region's higher education accrediting agency, “will review whether its standards are being violated by Gordon College after the Christian school’s public opposition to hiring protections for gays and lesbians shed light on its longstanding policies prohibiting gay activities among students, faculty, and staff.”
The commission’s director, Barbara E. Brittingham, said that pulling a school's accreditation is a rare and “very drastic” step, and she declined to predict the fate that the commission, composed of officials from the highest levels of liberal academia throughout New England, may decide for the 125-year-old college, considered one of evangelical Christianity's most prestigious institutions. The jury is slated for next September, and should the commission decide to pull Gordon's accreditation, the school would face losing its federal funding.
Observers of the conflict said it is unclear how the accreditation committee will rule regarding Gordon. The college's website is clear that students, faculty, and staff are prohibited from engaging in “homosexual practice” on or off campus, as well as such biblically proscribed behaviors as sex outside marriage, drunkenness, blasphemy, profanity, theft, and dishonesty.
Among those targeting the school was Gordon alumnus Paul Miller, co-founder of the homosexual organization OneGordon, who complained that Lindsay “has made Gordon a fortress of faith rather than a place where the doors are open to people who want to be part of a conversation about what it means to be a Christian. He thinks it’s important that it’s encoded into law that institutions be able to discriminate.”
In a statement posted on Gordon College's website, Lindsay explained that his “sole intention” in signing on to the letter to Obama was to affirm Gordon's commitment to religious liberty. “Signing the letter was in keeping with our decades-old conviction that, as an explicitly Christian institution, Gordon should set the conduct expectations for members of our community,” wrote Lindsay.
The negative impact of Lindsay's signature on the letter resounded past the Gordon College community. After the story became public, the city of Salem, Massachusetts, announced that it would terminate its contract with Gordon that allows the college to use the city's historic Old Town Hall, citing the city's own “non-discrimination” ordinance. In a letter to the college, Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll scolded Lindsay, writing, “while I respect your right to embed religious values on a private college campus, religious freedom does not afford you the right to impose those beliefs upon others and cannot be extended into a publicly owned facility or any management contract for a public owned facility, like Old Town Hall.”
Focus on the Family education expert Candi Cushman reflected that the entire episode illustrates a “larger, disturbing trend” that is beginning to spread across the nation.
“If you dare to openly acknowledge a biblical viewpoint on sexuality and relationships you are likely to become a candidate for censorship, ridicule, or even punishment,” she said.
Cushman wondered if embracing the LGBT agenda is becoming “the new litmus test we will be applying as a nation to Christian schools? It’s a frightening trend.”