Obama

[Shammu]

Obama message for Islam?
James Zumwalt
Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Within the first 100 days of his term, President Barack Obama has said he will visit the capital city of a Muslim country to deliver a foreign policy speech breaking new ground in U.S. relations with the Muslim world. It is a bold move that can very quickly set his presidency on course for success, or failure.

The message he delivers will cause him to navigate some fairly treacherous waters between democratic and Islamic values. And, should the wrong thing be said, or the right thing left unsaid, the new captain of our ship-of-state may find his vessel taking on water.

Mr. Obama's speech involves three considerations - audience, location and content.

His audience is clearly defined. In descending size, it includes Muslims firmly committed to Islam's peaceful practice; Muslims not so firmly committed but not extremist; and Muslims firmly committed to the extremist view seeking to rid the world of all nonbelievers. Only the first two groups will really hear Mr. Obama's speech. It is foolish to believe his words will give pause to extremists - committed as they are to a world unified under but one religion and to which they attach such hostility - to reconsider their viewpoint.

The location Mr. Obama selects for his speech will also be important. Site selection honors should not go to an "unworthy" Muslim state - i.e., one lacking tolerance towards nonbelievers. Thus, Saudi Arabia, though an ally, should not be considered.

But countries where the seed of tolerance has clearly blossomed - Muslim majority democracies such as Turkey, Indonesia or Mali, or, perhaps, even a tolerant Muslim constitutional monarchy such as Morocco - should be considered. The more tolerant the country selected, the more positive is the message of tolerance toward all religions conveyed by the leader of the Free World.

But it is the content of Mr. Obama's speech that will prove challenging. Just as our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan know not whether an explosive device lies on the road ahead, Mr. Obama will deliver his speech not knowing whether something he innocently attempts to communicate will be misunderstood, triggering an explosive reaction. Our Muslim brothers have clearly demonstrated disdain for criticism, triggering violence when interpreted as such. Consider the reactions to Pope Benedict XVI's innocent historic observation about Islam, Danish newspapers' publication of Muhammad caricatures, furor over a report (later proven false) that a U.S. military guard at Guantanamo flushed a Muslim prisoner's Koran down the toilet. All provided such triggers. But, if Mr. Obama intends to say the things that need be said in his speech, he risks an explosive reaction.

In trying to curry favor among his Muslim audience, the new president may be giving thought to apologizing for actions undertaken by his predecessor. But, in taking a conciliatory tone, Mr. Obama walks a fine line. Culturally, Muslims perceive atonement as weakness. For thousands of years, the Muslim world has not only feared, but revered, the Sumerian "lugal" or strongman - of which Saddam Hussein was but one in a long line.

Mr. Obama will be measured against this backdrop. As such, he should understand any self-flagellation or "mea culpa" delivered on behalf of America will only contribute to a perception of American weakness by the Muslim world. (Consider Turkey's longstanding reluctance to acknowledge responsibility for the World War I genocide of Armenians - even passing a law prohibiting such allegations.)

Mr. Obama would do better to focus his remarks on past U.S. efforts that saved Muslim lives and what the Western and Muslim worlds, working together, can do in the future to improve relations, forgoing apologies for perceived, past wrongs.

One issue, in particular, Mr. Obama must tackle in his speech will prove difficult for fear of triggering an explosive Muslim reaction. But, address it he must as it goes to the heart of the conflict between Islam's believers and nonbelievers. If omitted, or not appropriately worded, Mr. Obama's message will fail.

In 1948, United Nations member states drafted and passed with no negative votes despite wide-ranging ideological differences between the Western and Muslim worlds - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Even Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt supported it. The Declaration's foundation belief appears in the first sentence of Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

The Universal Declaration remained global law for more than three decades - until Islamic extremists took power in Iran in 1979, attacking the Declaration for representing "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition," unacceptable to Muslims for violating Islamic law.

Nine years ago in June, 57 member Muslim states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, following Iran's lead, supported a new definition of human rights according to Islam's Shariah law under the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). The Universal Declaration and the Cairo Declaration mandate human rights coverage for groups of vastly different sizes. The Universal Declaration extends coverage to 100 percent of the world population; the Cairo Declaration to roughly 8 percent - i.e., male Muslims, excluding nonbelievers and even Muslim women.

Westerners reject subordination of Muslims to nonbelievers by accepting the Universal Declaration; therefore, why not ask Muslims to reject subordination, as provided under the Cairo Declaration, of nonbelievers to Muslims? Nonbelievers tolerating their own subordination under the Cairo Declaration signal their weakness and provide no basis upon which to build a bridge traversing the religious divide between Islam's believers and nonbelievers.

President Obama must challenge Muslims to rejoin the fold of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, bridging this divide by recognizing "universal" human equality. An enormously gifted speaker, Mr. Obama must craft this message as only he can. The Muslim world must be encouraged to open its borders to all religions.

Mr. Obama should take a page from Ronald Reagan's historic 1987 speech challenging Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Wall separating East and West Berlin, thus recognizing freedom. In similar fashion, Mr. Obama should challenge Muslim leaders to tear down the wall separating Islam from other world religions, thus recognizing universal human equality.

Obama message for Islam?

[Shammu]

Obama to Beef Up PA Army
Adar 15, 5769 / March 11, '09
by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) The Obama administration has made plans to strengthen the emerging Palestinian Authority army that is currently being trained at an American-built base in Jordan.

U.S. Middle East envoy George C. Mitchell has asked Lieutenant-General Keith Dayton, who has been overseeing the training, to remain at his post for two more years. Dayton was due to end his three-year term at the end of 2009.

In addition, U.S. President Barack Obama intends to add a budget of as much as $55 million for training the force at the base, according to the Reuters news agency. The current budget is $75 million, and such an increase would almost double American military assistance to the PA.

Israeli officials were reportedly pleased to hear that Dayton will be staying on. “Dayton is a professional officer who takes his job very seriously,” said one defense official quoted by The Jerusalem Post. “An extension of his term is a demonstration that the administration wants to keep the situation here stable.”

Dayton and OC Central Command Major-General Gadi Shamni reportedly have a strong working relationship as well. There were concerns expressed, however, that Mitchell would use the expansion of the force as leverage to increase the takeover of the PA Special Force in other cities in Judea and Samaria.

Some 1,600 PA Special Forces have been trained since January 2008  and  are currently deployed in Shechem, Jenin, Bethlehem and Hevron. The increased budget would allow Dayton to increase the number of battalions being trained, as well as increase the amount of vehicles and other equipment provided to the troops.

The United States has provided uniforms  and other military equipment, as well as military personnel to train the PA recruits. According to The Jordan Times, arms are supplied solely by Arab states.

However, the new armed force is not referred to by the U.S. or the PA as an army, which is prohibited under the Oslo Accords.

American and Fatah officials are hoping the “special force” will fight terror and keep the rival Hamas faction at bay. The Hamas terrorist militia completely overwhelmed the rival Fatah loyalists in Gaza in June, 2007, surprising American military personnel who already had begun training the Fatah forces.

Obama to Beef Up PA Army

[Shammu]

Guess Israel is going to be their own soon. I'm praying that God is with them.

[nChrist]

You know, it's groups like these that practically BEG conspiracy theorists to come pounding on their door. "Alliance of Civilizations" just the initials of A.C., the name itself leading to suggest "one-world goverment"??

I think they know exactly what they are doing. Hiding in plain sight........... We are only seeing this, because we are watching.

Brother Bob,

Those who study Bible Prophecy know what's going to happen soon because we believe GOD'S WORD. We look at things through the magnifying glass of the Holy Bible, but the world laughs at such things. YES, everything is out in the open, and the End Days of this Age of Grace appear to be drawing near.

Mankind has had 2,000 years to study GOD'S WORD, so it's hard to understand why more of the world DOESN'T have a hint about what's going on under their noses. Their hearts must be hardened and their eyes blinded, just as the Bible foretold. Many self-professing Christians are in the same boat. Things should be getting WEIRD enough to give most folks a hint that BIG AND BAD THINGS are sure to happen soon. How soon - we don't know. I do know that it's far past time for folks to wake up!

Love In Christ,
Tom

2 Timothy 3:12-17 ASV  Yea, and all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.  13  But evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.  14  But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.  15  And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  16  Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.  17  That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

[Soldier4Christ]

Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case
Lawyer confronts justice about prez's qualifications

A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

According to Orly Taitz, a California attorney working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several cases challenging Obama, said she was presented with an opportunity to ask a question of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a single hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

While the requests have been heard "in conference" by the justices, no hearings have resulted on the evidence. WND previously has reported that cases brought to individual justices on an emergency basis can be discussed in such conferences, but they need the affirmative vote from four justices before a hearing on the merits can be scheduled.

The Supreme Court today is considered to have mainly a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote.  The liberal side frequently includes Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

No explanations on the court's response to the Obama citizenship issue have been offered until now.

Taitz reported she attended a reception for Scalia and stood "right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them."

She said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency."

Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.

"I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama's stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks," she said. "I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama's strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

"He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four," she said.

She then bought Scalia's book and waited in line to get it autographed.

"I gave him the books to sign and asked, 'Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate.' He said, 'Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others.'"

The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

The plaintiffs allege Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before Jan. 20, 2009.

"Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3," the document said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'"

Taitz said Americans should flood Holder's office with calls, e-mails and faxes, urging him to take action on the case.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

    * New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

    * Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

    * Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

    * Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

    * Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

    * Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

    * Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

    * In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

    * Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

    * In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

    * In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

    * California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

    * In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

    * In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

    * In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

    * In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

    * In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

[Soldier4Christ]

I found this article posted by John Ray on StopTheACLU blog. I found it interesting and actually to the current point. It definitely gives us all something to think about in regards to current events.

________________

IS OBAMA AN AUTHORITARIAN?

I wrote the article below for the Philadelphia “Bulletin” and it appeared there on 10th. I think its interest is not confined to Philadelphia, however, so I reprint it below. My many academic papers on authoritarianism can be accessed here

Among psychologists, the word “authoritarian” has a meaning quite different from how that word is used elsewhere. And thereby hangs a tale.

In normal usage, the word is most used to describe people who boss others around — with government by dictatorship being the extreme case of authoritarianism. But psychologists use it to describe people whom one researcher summed up as “fearful toadies”. There is certainly no evidence that they boss anybody around.

How come? It originates from an attempt by a Marxist-led group of psychologists to square the circle. Theodor Wiesengrund (aka Adorno) and his Leftist friends had a big problem immediately after World War II. Everybody was aware at that time that Hitler’s doctrines were simply a more aggressively-pursued version of what the American Left of the day (the “Progressives”) had been preaching for over half a century. In the first half of the 20th century, the enthusiastic preachers of eugenics and racism were all on the Left and Hitler had generally been in good odor among the prewar Left. He did after all call his movement “National SOCIALISM”.

But that had all now become disastrous. Being associated with Hitler was now beyond the pale. So some means had to be found to dissociate the political Left from Hitler. And if you could show that Hitler was in fact a conservative so much the better. And as we all now know, Wiesengrund and his team succeeded. Most people now believe that Hitler was of the Right. So how did they do it?

They said, correctly, that Hitler was an authoritarian and produced evidence to show that conservatives were more authoritarian than the Left. But the “evidence” they produced used their own very peculiar definition of “authoritarian”. It consisted of an opinion poll that used statements that were simply popular beliefs of the day — and if you agreed with lots of such statements you were arbitrarily said to be an “authoritarian”. That it would be more reasonable to describe such people simply as “agreeable” was glided over. Wiesengrund put forward Freudian-type theories to argue that even if such people were not likely to boss anyone around personally, they would support others who did. Wiesengrund never proved that but he may have been correct. It is plausible to argue that such people might well put up with ANY government of any character, whether or not they agreed with it.

So what was the point of all that? The point is that people who agreed with a lot of Wiesengrund’s collection of opinion statements tended to be politically conservative! That could probably have been interpreted as showing that easy-going guys tended to be conservative but within Wiesengrund’s theory it meant that authoritarians were conservative! Which is what he had set out to prove. In his mind, he had shown that the most likely supporters of Hitler and his ilk were conservatives! But note the leap of logic there. Even if we accept Wiesengrund’s claim that easy-going people are authoritarian, his findings do not show that conservatives are in general authoritarian. There are disagreeable conservatives too. It is like saying that some dogs are poodles so therefore all dogs are poodles.

But anyway, Left-leaning professors loved it all. It got them off the hook as chief supporters of Hitler. And from then on, they preached it so incessantly that almost everyone now believes that Hitler can be blamed on conservatives. The historical fact that Hitler’s most unrelenting enemy was a conservative — Winston Churchill — is quietly glided over. Freudian speculation is preferred to historical fact.

So where does Obama fit into that? Clearly, he is not a “fearful toadie”, so he is not an authoritarian in Wiesengrund’s sense. There are however things about him and his supporters that are interesting from a psychological viewpoint. There are a number of things which are alarming when taken together. Any one of the things that I am going to mention leads to no conclusions by itself. But when those things make a set (or a “syndrome” in medical parlance) conclusions tend to be suggested.

Let’s start with the obvious: Obama comes across as a nice guy. So did Hitler. The tremendous “hold” that Hitler had on Germans is generally unexplained in textbooks but the cause of it is in fact simple. He came across to Germans as a father-figure who loved his people.

Obama gained power through a democratic election. So did Hitler. Enough people voted for him for him to win control of the German government.

Obama has support among his followers that verges on the hysterical. So did Hitler.

Obama supporters are predominant in the media. Hitler dominated the media of his day too.

Hitler wanted the government to control most things without entirely abolishing the private sector. Obama is trying to vastly expand the role of government too.

All that is just by way of introduction, however. The most troubling thing about Nazism is that it was psychopathic. It showed no awareness or right and wrong and no respect for truth versus falsehood. And that fits in perfectly with the modern Leftist doctrine that “There is no such thing as right and wrong”. And Hitler did not just preach that. He carried it out. It is perhaps early days to see what Obama’s ideas of right and wrong (if any) will add up to but we CAN see what his ideas of truth and falsehood are. Like clinical psychopaths, Obama is a fantasizer with no regard for the truth at all. His latest claim (on Feb. 24) that the automobile was invented in America (all schoolboys used to know that it was actually Germany) is a minor example of that but he has been fantasizing often and for a long time. Take this excerpt from 2007:

     “Speaking early this month at a church in Selma, Ala., Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said: “I’m in Washington. I see what’s going on. I see those powers and principalities have snuck back in there, that they’re writing the energy bills and the drug laws.” . . .

    But not only did Obama vote for the Senate’s big energy bill in 2005, he also put out a press release bragging about its provisions, and his Senate Web site carries a news article about the vote headlined, “Senate energy bill contains goodies for Illinois.” . . .

    On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported that an extensive search found no basis for an episode Obama recounts [in his 1995 book, "Dreams From My Father"] about a picture he ran across in Life magazine of a “black man who had tried to peel off his skin” in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it. Obama writes that “seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush attack.” The Tribune reported: “Yet no such Life issue exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, ‘It might have been an Ebony or it might have been . . . who knows what it was?’ (At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.)” . . .

    As another example, consider Obama’s stirring tale for the Selma audience about how he had been conceived by his parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor following the “Bloody Sunday” voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4. “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala.,” he said, “because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Ala.”

    Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: “I meant the whole civil rights movement.”

He just makes things up as he goes along with no concern about the truth at all. But the silly thing about such fantasies, and the thing that brands them as psychopathic, is that they sound good only at the time. Subsequently they are easily found out as false and therefore tend to cause distrust of the speaker. The psychopath just floats along on a sea of fantasy until people eventually find him out and cut him off. And I think there are already signs that Obama’s proposed solutions to America’s problems are fantasies too. The “stimulus” that did not stimulate seems likely not to be the last fantasy that does not work out in reality.

So Obama has a lot in common with the Fascists of history, with his clear psychopathic tendencies being the most worrying. He is in that real-life sense an authoritarian.

[Soldier4Christ]

While reading the above post on StopTheACLU blog I also came across a video that was posted there. I can't link to it because it was a YouTube video but I just had to make of it anyway. I'm glad to see that I am not the only person that has taken notice of this fact. I was watching a Fox News report about a speech that Obama was giving in front of a group of Marines. I noticed that the welcome that he was given was really quite subdued, very mild and quiet. I remember that every time President Bush went around the Military he was always given a very strong, heartfelt round of applause and many OORAH's, HOOAH's and HOOYAH's along with many other loudly given signs of approval and respect.

The video displayed there just showed this marked difference.

[Soldier4Christ]

FBI raids office of Obama appointee
Employee, private contractor charged with defrauding D.C. government

An employee of the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer and a private contractor were charged with corruption Thursday after an FBI raid at the former office of one of President Obama's appointees, Vivek Kundra.

Kundra is on leave from his White House job until further details of the case become known, a White House source tells the Associated Press.

Kundra has not been linked to Thursday's raid.

Yusuf Acar, 40, acting chief security officer of the D.C. Office of the CTO, was charged with bribery of a public official, money laundering, wire fraud and conflict of interest.

Acar was ordered held without bond until a hearing Tuesday.

FBI agents found $70,000 in Acar's Northwest D.C. home when they arrested him Thursday morning.

Acar, a native of Turkey, is responsible for buying D.C.'s computer equipment and hiring contract workers for various D.C. agencies. Acar, who has been with the agency since December 2004, has an annual salary of $127,468, according to charging documents.

Sushil Bansal, President and CEO of Advanced Integrated Technologies Corporation (AITC) and a former D.C. government employee, was charged with bribery of a public official, money laundering, wire fraud and conflict of interest.

Bansal, 41, was released but ordered not to engage in overseas financial transactions and had to surrender his passport. Bansal, of Dunn Loring, Va., is due back in court on April 21.

Government records show Bansal, a native of India, is not a U.S. citizen and holds an H-1B visa, which is given to foreign workers in specialty occupations.

Authorities say Acar and Bansal, along with others, used a variety of schemes to defraud the D.C. government, including billing the District for inventory that was never delivered and billing "ghost" contract employees who never worked.

The alleged scheme involved Acar approving falsified bills and then splitting the money with Bansal - who submitted them - and other vendors, according to charging documents.

The FBI worked with another D.C. Office of the CTO employee who was in on the scheme and secretly recorded conversations with Acar and Bansal as part of the investigation.

Several other individuals and businesses are involved in the alleged schemes, but an FBI affidavit supporting the arrest warrants only identifies them by their initials.

Bansal's company has offices in D.C. and India and received more than $13 million in business with the D.C. government in the past five years, according to court documents.

One contract involved providing computer support to the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles. The company also was given a contract to upgrade the city's human resources computer records and sold virus detection software to the city.

In 2008, Bansal received the Entrepreneur of the Year Award from the Association of Indians in America, according to AITC's Web site.

Last week, Kundra resigned from his post as D.C. chief technology officer to take a job in the Obama administration as the federal government's chief information officer.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the Department of Justice told the White House on Thursday morning of its planned raid.

However, Gibbs declined to comment on whether the White House was aware of the investigation before Thursday.

AITC has been working with the D.C. government since 2004. Once Kundra took over as D.C. Chief Technology Officer in March 2007, AITC's contracts doubled to more than $5 million in 2008.

Kundra has also worked for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). During his time at SAIC, Kundra provided consulting services at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On AITC's Web site, Bansal lists SAIC as one of AITC's strategic partners and says his firm has performed contract work for HHS.

On Thursday morning, the FBI served a search warrant at the office of D.C.'s Chief Technology Officer.

More than a dozen FBI agents - including evidence technicians - were at the office, located at 1 Judiciary Square on 4th Street in Northwest.

Most of the employees were told to go home. Other employees were put into a waiting room.

The FBI later expanded its search from 9th floor offices to 10th floor offices.

The 10th floor was closed to the public while the FBI searched the offices that house the Administrative Services Modernization Program.

As the raid took place, Kundra was giving a speech at FOSE - an annual government technology expo - about changing the way the government purchases materials from vendors.

[Soldier4Christ]

President Neophyte: Wounded Vets Should Pay For Care

Posted by William Teach on StopTheACLU blog

Remember a few years back, when Democrats threw a fit over Bush’s supposed ideas on health care for veterans in 2004? This from the Democratic Policy Committe: Bush to Veterans: Pay More, Wait Longer, Receive Less Health Care. Notice this is .gov domain.

Then they had hissy fits over increased co-pays for veterans and other military folks not on active duty, including for injuries sustained when not on duty, such as hurting yourself putting together a backyard swing set, and the media was happy to write stories that made Bush look bad.

Now, though: Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance

The article points out that no final decision is being made, but, just the point that the Obama amateur hour would even consider this shows where their heads are and what they think of the military. On the bright side, as the article points out, there is at least one Senate Democrat who thinks Obambi has lost his mind.

________________

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance

By Adam Levine
CNN

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

 But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.
Don't Miss

    * Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries
    * 12,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq by fall, military says

A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.

"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.

Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.

"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."

Eleven of the most prominent veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea. In the letter sent last week to the president, the groups warned that the idea "is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government's moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much."

The groups included The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

At the time, a White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option was being considered.

________________

[Soldier4Christ]

On the bright side, as the article points out, there is at least one Senate Democrat who thinks Obambi has lost his mind.

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement.

YOU CAN'T LOSE WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BEGIN WITH!

There are already many Veterans doing without proper care and this includes those that have service connected and combat related ailments/injuries. It is completely insane to take away even more critically needed care from those that have given so much for others.

[Shammu]

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Veterans who have served in any, of the armed forces have paid the premiums for life. They SHOULD NOT, have to EVER pay for health insurance!!

ANY senator, or congressman/woman who would vote for this, needs to serve in the armed forces and see combat first hand. Then lets see if he/she has learned anything!!

This reminds me of a statement of a woman who said, returning soldiers (WW2) should be loosed into the jungle in the Panama canal region. That the veterans were to violent for people in the United States. After they had been cured of all violent tendencies, they should be returned the the United States at that time.

[Shammu]

YOU CAN'T LOSE WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BEGIN WITH!

I agree, Obama, never had a mind to start with!!

[Soldier4Christ]

Did Supreme Court clerk torpedo eligibility cases?
Taitz submits motion for rehearing in case challenging Obama's citizenship
Posted: March 12, 2009


A California attorney whose emergency submission to the U.S. Supreme Court on President Obama's eligibility was turned back without a hearing or comment now is submitting a motion for re-hearing, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

The motion for reconsideration alleges a court clerk "of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices petitioners' supplemental brief presented on January 15, 2009."

Orly Taitz, who is working on the case Lightfoot vs. Bowen through her foundation, Defend Our Freedoms, told WND that she started checking back through her paperwork after asking Justice Antonin Scalia this week about the case.

His response was that a petitioner needed four affirmative votes among the nine justices for a hearing to be held.  Taitz interpreted to mean that among the four justices generally considered conservative, at least one had been voting against hearing the Obama eligibility issue.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

While the requests have been heard "in conference" by the justices, no hearings have resulted on the evidence. WND previously has reported that cases brought to individual justices on an emergency basis can be discussed in such conferences, but they need the affirmative vote from four justices before a hearing on the merits can be scheduled.

(Story continues below)

          

 

The Supreme Court today is considered to have mainly a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote.  The liberal side frequently includes Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

Taitz explained in the motion that she submitted a brief Jan. 15 that reflected new developments in the case. She noted such filings "are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case."

The change was the approval by Congress of the Electoral College vote in the presidential race.

However, the clerk "refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he will send it back with [an] explanation," the motion states. "Nothing was sent back and no explanation [was] provided."

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Taitz' latest challenge to Obama's eligibility is a Quo Warranto case submitted to the U.S. attorney general, a legal standard that essentially allows citizens to demand on what grounds someone in authority exercises that power.

She has 10 state representatives and about 130 members of the U.S. military signed on as plaintiffs in the action.

But now Taitz is raising concerns about manipulation of her case at the Supreme Court. She asserts docketing information about her case "was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard]."

"Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, the case was re-entered on the docket … shortly before the hearing. … No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court to this occurrence."

She noted the same clerk told another attorney it was a computer malfunction, but it affected none of the other cases on the docket.

Taitz also renewed her questions about a closed door meeting between Obama, the subject of the pending case, and eight of the nine justices, before the hearing on the case.

Taitz said when Scalia told her to get the four votes needed for the case to have it heard, he also reflected an absence of knowledge about some of the issues she would have expected him to know about.

"He had no knowledge about any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court that challenged Obama's eligibility for president," Taitz wrote.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the justices at all or summarized them in a light that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to the plaintiffs," Taitz said.

She said when she was talking to Scalia, she specifically mentioned other cases on the same subject, brought by Berg, Wrotnowski and Donofrio.

"He had a bewildered look on his face, he kept saying – 'I don't know, I don't remember, I don't know, I don't remember,'" she said "Scalia seems to be one of the most decent judges on this court. I think he was telling the truth. Could it be that the cases were handled by … clerks?"

Because of the indications of "sabotage" inside the court, she said she would try to hand-deliver the petition to Chief Justice John Roberts today when he speaks at the University of Idaho at Moscow.

The petition also will be posted on her DefendOurFreedoms.us site, she said, and it is being mailed to other justices on the court.

[Soldier4Christ]

Eligibility bill
hits Congress
Representative files law requiring
candidates show birth certificate

A freshman representative has introduced a bill to the U.S. Congress that would require presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate and other documents  to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which increased required campaign fund disclosure and was later amended to establish the Federal Elections Commission.

According to the Library of Congress' bill-tracking website, H.R. 1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

George Cecala, a spokesperson for Rep. Posey's office, told WND that constituents had been calling, questioning whether Barack Obama – who has publicized a Certificate of Live Birth, but not his official birth certificate – has demonstrated that he meets the Constitution's requirement to be a natural-born citizen.

"Those are legitimate constitutional concerns," Cecala said. "Folks have brought the issue up, and the court really hasn't clarified. And I think American citizens have a right to have answers from their government."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

"When seven-year-olds play soccer in Brevard County, to be in Little League they have to prove their residency," Cecala said. "To be president there are three requirements: one is citizenship, two is the age of 35, and three, you have to have been a resident for 14 years. We're simply saying when you file your statement of candidacy with the FEC, you should also file documentation that you fulfill the three requirements to be president.

"There's two standards here," Cecala told WND, "one for Little League and one for president."

"Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as president," explained Rep. Posey in an official statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations is healthy for our republic. This bill, by simply requiring such documentation for future candidates for president will remove this issue as a reason for questioning the legitimacy of a candidate elected as president."

Cecala further told WND that there's no political motivation in proposing the bill, and the Congressman hopes passing the bill will help clear the air for the president, enabling the government to get beyond the election controversy to dealing with the nation's other important issues.

"Once we pass this bill, we can be assured that future elections won't have this problem," Cecala said. "It's not an attack on President Obama; it's just clarifying for future elections."

Cecala also explained that if passed, the amendment to election law would require Obama, just like any other candidate, to provide a birth certificate in any future presidential elections.

H.R. 1503 has been referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court: No need for state
to check prez' eligibility
Judge throws out complaint
brought on behalf of Keyes

A California court has ruled that apparently anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen contends that there is no basis for mandamus relief because the Secretary of State has no 'ministerial duty' to demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates," said Judge Michael P. Kenny. "The court finds this argument persuasive."

His opinion threw out a case raising questions over President Barack Obama's eligibility that had been brought by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate, and others.

That even though, as WND has reported, California in the past has exercised the authority to determine whether presidential candidates are qualified, and remove them from the ballot if they are not.

The lawsuit explained secretaries of state in California previously have exercised their election authority and have rejected candidates who did not qualify.

"As stated in our previous pleadings herein, former California Secretaries of State have taken legal action to remove individuals from the ballot for failure to comply with the eligibility requirements to serve as President of the United States, although, in those cases, the issue had to do with the 'age' requirement, not the 'natural born citizen,'" the USJF said.

The filing continued with the warning, "If MR. OBAMA is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in Courts of the United States of America, and in International Courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for President in the future, is eligible to serve in that office."

The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president, and then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan "found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president."

USJF explained that "using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States."

The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.

Even in the 2008 campaign, foreign-born third-party candidate Roger Calero was removed from ballots in some states, according to elections reports.

The judge, however, dismissed the case on Bowen's arguments and others.

"A traditional writ of mandate can only issue if the respondent has a clear, present, and usually ministerial duty and the petitioner has a clear, present, and beneficial interest in the performance of that duty. … Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 provides that a writ of mandate will lie 'to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from office, trust or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled," the judge wrote.

"Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the Secretary of State to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from Presidential candidates. Elections Code section 6901 requires the Secretary of State to provide local elections officials with a certified list of the names and party affiliations of candidates nominated by their respective parties to appear on the November 4, 2008 Presidential General Election ballot. Elections Code section 15505 requires the Secretary of State to certify to the Governor the names of the electors receiving the highest number of votes," he wrote.

But there's simply no "clear or present ministerial duty" to require eligibility documentation from presidential candidates.

"Such a duty is not imposed by of Elections Code section 12172.5 which provides that the secretary of state 'shall see that state election laws are enforced,'" he wrote.

The judge also threw out a subpoena issued to Occidental College to provide copies of Obama's records of attendance there.

Keyes has been critical of judges' refusal to listen to evidence in the disputes.

"In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution, they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign people as a whole," Keyes said.

In a commentary on the dispute, Keyes wrote that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the questions, already raised as an issue by Obama's lawyers in his case, "confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.

"Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation," Keyes said.

"As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world's esteem," Keyes said.