Dedicated to Preserving the U.S.A. Constitutional Republic Form of Limited Government

A dynamic alert and dialogue on preserving the U.S.A. Constitutional Republic form of limited government, free enterprise systems and responsible individual self-rule, as in... We the people, for the people, and by the people. A free flow of ideas, comments and opinions about individual challenges and/or opportunities and their solutions - congruent with the Judeo-Christian core values on which the U.S.A. was created, developed and formed.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Obama 'defiance' of Constitution earns impeachment call

'What use are elections if the executive branch rules by decree?'

By Bob Unruh

Barack Obama

An organization that represents the 75 percent of American citizens who want more control over illegal immigration is calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama over his involvement in the transfer of weapons to Mexican drug lords and his efforts to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.

"President Obama is no longer the legitimate president of the United States," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, in calling for the action today.

Jerome Corsi's new book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" now is available for immediate shipping, autographed by thet author, only from the WND Superstore.

"By arming drug and human smugglers with assault weapons that have been used to kill American and Mexican citizens and police forces, and by ordering amnesty for illegal aliens which has been rejected by both the Congress and the American public more than eight times, Obama has committed a form of treason against the United States and must be removed from office by Congress," he said.

His call joins a chorus of other voices who already have expressed the idea. Those comments have come from a number of columnists and commentators, one member of Congress, a former member of Congress and retired military leaders. Even Vice President Joe Biden, then a senator, at one point said he would support impeachment of a president who misuses the executive power to take the nation into a war.

Gheen cited the developing "Operation Gunrunner" scandal in which federal agents had gun shops sell weapons to customers suspected of links to Mexican drug gangs. He also pointed to Obama's "recent edict instructing federal employees to establish a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in defiance of the Congress, existing federal laws, and the U.S. Constitution."

Gheen noted Obama's ICE director, John Morton, issued a memo June 17 to all ICE field office directors, special agents-in-charge and chief counsel, authorizing them to decline to remove illegal aliens who meet the qualifications for amnesty under the DREAM Act amnesty – which has failed repeatedly in Conggress.

He also said congressional investigations have "determined that Obama's ATF and Justice Department have been supplying assault weapons to the drug cartels that import most of America's cocaine, methamphetamine, and illegal immigrants."

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is a national organization with more than 40,000 supporters who represent the majority of Americans who want America's existing immigration laws enforced, Gheen said.

He said the issue is that the president "made it clear to the American public that he does not care what they think, what the current federal laws are, what the U.S. Constitution says, or what Congress has ratified."

"Congress must take immediate action to stop Obama or the American Republic will fall. What use are elections, candidates, or the Congress, if the executive branch rules by decree?" he said.

It was in a video interview that Biden, then a presidential candidate in 2007, stated, "A president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war … unless we're attacked or there is proof we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him."

The issue is Obama's decision to intervene militarily in Libya. Although critics have raised the same issue about President Bush's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the regimes in those countries at the time were thought to have contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

WND CEO and founder Joseph Farah cited Biden's comments in a column.

"Never before in the history of the United States has an occupant of the White House displayed less concern for the Constitution and the rule of law than Barack Obama. It's about time somebody said it: It's time to impeach Obama," Farah wrote.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks

Attorney Larry Klayman, a former Justice Department prosecutor, founder of Judicial Watch and now of Freedom Watch, agreed.

"From what has already occurred, the offenses of the 'mullah in chief' are 'already' so compelling as to warrant immediate impeachment and conviction for his high crimes and misdemeanors, before the United States is totally destroyed by him," he wrote.

Klayman cited Obama's decision to refuse to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, his pursuit of Arizona in court over its decision to defend its citizens from illegal aliens invading the state, his "visceral hatred and subversion of the state of Israel" and others.

The first statement from a member of Congress on the issue came from U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who responded to this question from Think Progress: "I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don't reverse course [regarding trials for terror suspects] here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?"

Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts."

WND also has reported that Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, before the 2010 election, predicted that the House would impeach Obama with a majority in the House, but he wouldn't be removed from office because that would demand 67 votes in the Senate.

"Hear me now and believe me later. ... They won't do it right away. And they won't succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office," Chait wrote.

In his explanation of why he believed an impeachment could be forthcoming, Chait says the reason itself won't matter.

"Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense," Chait wrote.

WND also reported when Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, who served in Vietnam and commanded the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground during his long military career, said Congress should simply hand Obama an ultimatum.

"Action should be taken by the Senate and should be taken by the House," he said. "They should serve notice on him and say, 'Mr. President, we love you but we want to tell you something. You're under a cloud of suspicion. We can't continue running this country with you in charge under this cloud. Now either you clear it up or you resign from office.'"

He was answering questions on Stan Solomon's "Talk to Solomon" show:

Further, retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites, earlier told WND he believed Obama should resign.

Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, "We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro (aka President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution.

"We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government," he has warned.

"'We the People' have had enough. Enough is enough. The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive-socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. 'We the People' cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen's interests above self-interest by resigning immediately," he said.

Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama's resignation.

"I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012]," he wrote. "I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012," Ferrera said.

WND also reported that former congressman and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath to defend the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to file impeachment charges against Obama.

Tancredo wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Times that Obama's "refusal to live up to his own oath of office – which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion – requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama."

At the same time, Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote, "President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached."

Kuhner continued, "He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go."

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, in a WND column, discussed the ImpeachObamaCampaign.com they launched.

And at the Taking America Back 2010 conference in Miami in September, Floyd Brown expanded on the idea.

Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, said, "The Obama presidency is a disease. … Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it's Obama's hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now.

"Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray," Brown added. "He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he's doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he's taking us.

"Barack Obama is a very dangerous man," said Brown. "Over the last two years, we have been watching the slow progression of what I call a bloodless coup."

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Adobe book editor positive: Obama certificate is phony

BIRTH CERTIFICATE

'Altered document is manufactured, or in everyday parlance – a forgery'

By Jerome R. Corsi

NEW YORK – A nationally recognized computer expert who has served as contributing author and technical editor for more than 100 books on Adobe and Microsoft software says the Obama long-form birth-certificate image released by the White House is a fraudulent document created with Adobe software.

"The PDF file released by the White House contains evidence of manipulation suggesting that one or more forgers utilized existing Hawaiian birth certificates to assemble fraudulently for Barack Obama a document the president presented to the world as authentic," Mara Zebest told WND.

Zebest has prepared a full analysis of the image that was presented April 27 by Barack Obama to the world as a copy of his original birth documentation in the state of Hawaii.

Read the full analysis of the Obama long-form birth certificate image released to the public.

The image released online is a copy of Obama's copy of the original, as are the paper copies that were handed out to reporters.

Jerome Corsi’s new book, "Where’s the Birth Certificate?", is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore

Zebest's analysis begins by documenting inconsistencies in the pixels and bitmap text that display throughout the Obama file, for instance, in the birth certificate number 10641, as seen in Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 1. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Viewed in Adobe Acrobat at 1200 percent zoom

Exhibit 2 offers more examples of the telltale inconsistencies Zebest found. First, defining her terms, Zebest explains that "antialiasing" is the transition of pixel colors that occurs when differing color tones bump into each other in an image. It offers a smooth line (to the eye) when viewed at the normal zoom. Viewed in a closeup mode it appears as an angled pattern. She explains, "Without antialiasing, the edges appear jagged or bitmapped." Bitmapping is a specific computer format used for images that gives them a more choppy appearance when zoomed.

According to Zebest:

Bitmap text versus antialiasing text: Notice the bitmap X checkbox in question compared to the antialiased X checkbox in question "e" – major inconsistency.
Additionally, the checkboxes are slightly different widths and positioned differently. (Pixels of checkboxes on the bottom right overlap line pixels below, almost as if the boxes were copied and pasted and manually positioned).
Some letter characters are identical, pixel for pixel, almost as if they were copied and pasted and then moved into position. For example, the lowercase "i" in the word Inside is identical to the first "i" in judicial. There are many similar identical instances as there are dissimilar typesetting examples of different fonts – both suggesting compilation of a document digitally.
Irregular typesetting spacing which is not consistent with proportional spacing used by computers or monospacing used by typewriters in 1961 – but is consistent with copy and pasting and moving letters around. Example: The word "Yes," which has too much space between "Y" and "e" and not enough space between "e" and "s."

"A normal document scanned and saved as a PDF file would not display these inconsistencies unless the document had been digitally altered," she said. "A digitally altered document is by definition a manufactured document, or in everyday parlance – a forgery."

Exhibit 2. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Evidence of Font typesetting inconsistencies

Exhibit 3 demonstrates mixed solid bitmapped character elements combined with antialiased elements in the signature of Ann Dunham and in the text of the form immediately above her first name, Stanley, enclosed in parentheses.

Exhibit 3. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Inconsistencies within signatures

"Typed characters in the birth certificate form appear to have been altered digitally by the forgers whenever signatures overlapped or bumped against printed text characters in the form,” she said.

Figure 4 shows the dates stamped into boxes 20 and 22 on the form displaying different color tones within the date stamp, such that some of the digits are dark black – especially the last digit "1" in both instances – while other digits are a light gray.

Exhibit 4. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Inconsistencies in pixel colors and spelling errors

"My guess is that the creator of this document was inexperienced when it comes to a multitude of concepts in using Adobe software," Zebest said. "Whoever forged the Obama birth certificate might have known enough to be dangerous, but not enough to know how to cover up their tracks."

Exhibit 4 also notes the misspelling of "THE" in the rubber stamp placed on the document by the Hawaii State Register Alvin Onaka, Ph.D., and an apparent smiley face drawn in the loop of the letter "A" on his signature – two anomalies on which WND previously reported.

As noted in Exhibit 5, Zebest also listed a number of questions about the Obama birth certificate that she believes demand explanation.

Exhibit 5. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Overall information defies common sense

Her list of questions regarding Exhibit 5 included the following:

Why is there an odd, excessive typesetting space between the number 4 and comma in the birth date?
"African" is not a race. Would "American" be a race? It may not be politically correct, but in 1961, the option for race would have been Negro, not "African," which is another odd artifact out of place with the context of the historical time and place – an anachronism.
Speaking of anachronisms, in 1961, when typewriters were used, the typist would move to the next line, and items would be started in a standard left margin (unless the typist purposely tabbed over to a different location on the document); thus, most of the left margin text would consistently line up at the same point. Figure 13 is explained below, and can be used to compare the margin line text in the Nordyke certificate with Obama’s in Figure 12. Nothing is properly aligned in Obama’s document.
The certificate number is out of sequence. Wouldn’t a smaller certificate number be consistent with the earlier birth date and the earlier Date Accepted, the filing date? WND previously reported on the anomaly involving the Nordyke numbers.
Where is the state seal? Who has an official birth certificate document that is missing a seal?
Why is there a background pattern? The Obama administration claims the pattern was added for security purposes – but isn't that admitting to altering the document? Is the administration trying to create a frame of hiding the edits in plain sight by saying, "Yes, we edited the document to add security paper." And why would this even be necessary?
Why would the date at the bottom of the document display different type fonts? The font used for the year is clearly a different font than the one used for the day. Under what circumstances would you change fonts while typing a date? Even if a stamp were used to stamp a date, wouldn't the stamp be made with the same consistent font?

Zebest concluded that the Nordyke twins' birth certificates played a major role in the forgery of the Obama birth certificate.

"When viewing Obama's document for the first time, one of the items that struck me as odd was the curvature at the left edge of the documents," she noted. "To make matters worse, I could see evidence that the poor quality text seems to be digitally manipulated to mimic the curvature."

Ultimately, Zebest concluded that the inspiration for putting the curvature effect into the Obama forgery came from the Nordyke twins' birth certificates.

"For me, the Nordyke image explains the inspiration for the curvature effect – and trust me, it's just that – an effect – even down to the shadow," she explained. "I believe the Nordyke image played a significant role in compiling Obama's document, so much so that I have come to conclude the forgers used the Nordyke birth certificates as their ultimate template for the final product."

Zebest concluded her study with an analysis of the multiple layers evident in the White House-released PDF file.

She rejected the White House explanation that the layers were produced by scanning the document with OCR, or Optical Character Recognition, software turned on.

Examining the Onaka ink stamp, Zebest was able to determine that the object placed into the Obama document was scaled 34 percent and rotated 90 degrees. The result, she said, could be obtained only through digital manipulation and could not be an artifact of having scanned the document with OCR software activated.

"The text responds as if it were in a Microsoft Word document," she asserted. "The text can be selected, changed, copied and pasted."

Image released by White House in April

Zebest concluded that whoever forged the Obama birth certificate probably did most of the digital manipulation required to construct the document using the program Adobe Photoshop.

Then, the manipulated document was transported to Adobe Illustrator for final touch-up before being released to the public.

She believes whoever created the forgery had insufficient expertise and did not realize that "flattening" the document in Photoshop Illustrator – a process that melds the layers – would still allow professionals to determine the layers required to manipulate the data in the process of forging the document.

"Overall, it's an amateur job," Zebest said. "The forgers obviously over-estimated their level of expertise in undertaking to forge a document that is destined to play a pivotal role in U.S. history."

How could any forger working for the White House be so sloppy?

"As president of the United States, you can't exactly put out a Request for Proposal asking the forger to submit credentials and pricing to the White House chief of staff," she answered. "A small group around you may be loyal, and someone within that group may have computer graphic arts experience, but forging a document that will sustain expert forensic analysis is a skill-set not required of most commercial designers and artists who use Adobe software on an everyday basis."

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Ryder to abortionists - Not with our trucks

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

Rental firm denies equipment for disposal of aborted babies

By Michael Carl

In a major victory for the pro-life movement, Ryder System, Inc., one of the nation's leading truck leasing companies, has notified the Campaign to Stop Stericycle that the corporate giant no longer will allow medical waste disposal company Stericycle to use its trucks to service abortion clinics.

Campaign to Stop Stericycle director Michael Marcavage, also the leader of Repent America, says Ryder's decision is a "blessing."

"This is another victory for the cause of the unborn and Ryder's decision to distance itself from Stericycle's involvement with the abortion industry is another step towards ending Stericycle's facilitation of the abortion holocaust," Marcavage declared.

"We hope the remaining truck leasing [companies] will follow Ryder and Penske's lead to stop providing resources to Stericycle to assist abortion facilities in carrying out their evil deeds," Marcavage said.

Read about the fight: "Struggling for Life: How our Tax Dollars and Twisted Science Target the Unborn"

It was another major truck leasing firm, Penske Truck Leasing, that announced earlier it no longer would allow its trucks to be used to service at abortion clinics.

Penske Corp. President Brian Hard told the campaign, "We have been, and you have my word that we will continue to be, proactive in stopping Stericycle from using our trucks to service abortion clinics."

Marcavage says his campaign isn't stopping with Ryder and Penske.

"Our hope is to keep pressure on the other truck leasing companies to remove themselves as well," Marcavage said.

Stericycle picking up abortion clinic waste (Repent America photo)

Marcavage gives the truck leasing companies the benefit of the doubt when they are confronted, and so far when notified about Stericycle's connection to the abortion business, the firms ordered their trucks to be removed from abortion clinic service.

"Ryder didn't know their trucks were being used for this. Penske didn't know their trucks were being used for this purpose either. When the owner, Roger Penske, found out about it, he said he didn't want any affiliation with that and ultimately had those trucks removed from that service," Marcavage said.

"Stericycle, the nation's leading waste management company, depends entirely upon truck leasing companies like Ryder to provide vehicles for its waste collection routes, which include a reported 586 Planned Parenthood locations and hundreds of other abortion facilities nationwide," the campaign said.

Ryder was not available for comment by press time, although the campaign announcement quoted Ryder legal officer and Executive Vice President Bob Fatovic as saying that the Ryder-Stericycle relationship will be adjusted.

"In approximately 30 days Ryder's trucks will be fully removed from all of Stericycle's routes that service abortion facilities, and may not be used to service the abortion industry 'in any way, shape or form,'" he said.

Marcavage emphasizes his conviction that Stericycle is doing something that is morally wrong.

"Stericycle is the premier provider of medical waste service pick-up to the abortion industry. Our goal is to get Stericycle to stop collaborating with the abortion industry," Marcavage said.

Marcavage believes that companies like Stericycle, other medical waste disposal companies and other related businesses are enabling the abortion business to stay alive.

"It's because of Stericycle that the abortion industry is flourishing in this country because they're the company that a lot of abortion facilities are turning to in order to have their aborted babies and medical tools used to be taken to be incinerated," Marcavage explained.

"Our hope is that we would see Stericycle remove itself from this whole picture," Marcavage added.

Stericycle's website reports it is a "leader" in medical waste disposal.

"As the leader in the collection, treatment and disposal of medical and biohazardous waste, we help ensure maximum infection control throughout the entire process. The Stericycle medical waste disposal service provides complete custody documentation, which is essential for accountability and regulatory compliance of biohazardous materials," the website reported.

"We provide all necessary containers, then pick them up and safely treat and dispose of the medical waste," the company said.

Stericycle's knowledge of the medical waste disposal business is the reason Marcavage says he gives the truck companies the benefit of the doubt, but not Stericycle.

WND reported in January when CSS began its campaign to stop medical waste companies like Stericycle that Stericycle Manager Mara Villalobos, who formerly managed Stericycle's contracts with "multiple regions of Planned Parenthood" – confirmed that Stericycle does indeed accept fetal remains.

In a recording, she explained how the fetal remains go into one box for pickup and disposal, and the other materials, such as blood-soaked towels or gloves, go into another.

"She explained the detailed packaging guidelines for abortion mills, in which fetal remains are placed into red 'soft waste' bags, then into secondary boxes, which are labeled with 'incinerate only' stickers. The fetal remains are then taken to Stericycle's incineration plant in Haw River, N.C., where they are burned into ash," the campaign said.

Stericycle picking up abortion clinic waste (Repent America photo)

"Ryder didn't know that these medical waste companies were using their trucks to make pick-ups at abortion clinics. Stericycle, they're a Goliath in the medical waste industry. They rely entirely on leased trucks to carry out their evil deeds," Marcavage said.

Marcavage, believes that hitting the medical supply and support companies, large and small, is an effective way to end abortion.

"The pressure hasn't been on these medical waste companies that are not as big as Stericycle but have been having this one stop among all of their other stops on their collection route," Marcavage said. "Our issue is when they make that one stop at an abortion facility."

Marcavage hopes that by taking out the bigger Stericycle, there will be a domino effect.

"Stericycle is the giant, and once we get them removed, the smaller companies may not want anything to do with that (abortion clinic business)," Marcavage said.

"As we put pressure on Stericycle, we've found that other smaller companies were also not aware that some of clinics were putting aborted babies in the boxes. They thought the clinics shouldn't be doing that," Marcavage continued.

"So if there's enough public outcry over these companies, I believe that it's going to be difficult for these abortion providers to find medical waste companies that will service them," Marcavage added.

"Struggling for Life: How our Tax Dollars and Twisted Science Target the Unborn"

"Betrayed by the Bench"

The definitive handbook for battling 'pro-choicers.' Be ready with the perfect answers to the abortion issue's toughest questions.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Will states actually block Obama from ballot access?

A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY

Committee chairs, even governors work to make sure no one questions Obama

By Drew Zahn

Since the controversy began over Barack Obama's failure to conclusively demonstrate his eligibility to serve as president, legislators in at least 15 states have attempted to pass bills that would clarify how a candidate must prove his constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and all but one have been stalled, vetoed or shot down.

As WND has reported, there exists virtually no mechanism in the U.S. for investigating whether or not a presidential candidate meets the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1, "natural-born citizen" requirement.

Last year, New Hampshire became the only state to successfully sign into law a bill clarifying eligibility requirements.

But New Hampshire's H.B. 1245, signed into law by Democratic Governor John Lynch, merely requires a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, similar to what the political parties already send to states regarding their candidates.

Most of the efforts of at least 14 other states were launched in January, only to be tabled, ignored or killed by March. Montana's bill, which requires a candidate for president or vice president to submit a certified copy of his or her birth certificate to Montana's secretary of state, was ruled dead in committee on April 28 – the day after Obama produced his purported long-form birth certificate.

But Jerome Corsi, author of "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," says Americans shouldn't view Obama's release as the end of the issue.

"State legislators are being hoodwinked by the White House to think that just because Obama has released a long-form birth certificate, the question of his eligibility to be president is over," Corsi told WND.

"Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

"Debate continues to rage over whether the birth certificate released on April 27 is a forgery," Corsi continued. "To date, the 'best evidence' of that document in a legal sense – namely, the original, 1961 long-form paper certificate – remains under lock and key in the vault of the Hawaii Department of Health. The U.S. should demand the original Obama birth certificate document submit to independent forensic testing before the question of its authenticity is put to bed.

"All it would take is one state to pass a tough eligibility law, and the continuing cover-up over the Obama birth records could be brought to an end," he concluded. "Failure to do so will simply convince millions of Americans that our state legislators lack the resolve to defend the Constitution."

Opponents of the legislative efforts have tagged them "birther bills" in an attempt to marginalize their sponsors and argue that the legislation is merely an attack on Obama.

But Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the Republican author of the "birther bill" in his state, told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "I wouldn't say [the bill] is specifically in response to Obama," but instead stems from the lack of documentation required for candidates.

"As we know, legitimate questions periodically arise regarding the qualifications of a candidate for public office. What better way to resolve such questions than to require candidates to provide proof of their qualifications at the time they file their nomination petitions or nomination papers," Metcalfe wrote in a memo seeking co-sponsors for his bill. "I believe that this process is one of the many steps that we can take to restore the faith of the voting public in the electoral process."

"The states should pass bills requiring the state secretary of state to examine birth credentials before putting a candidate on the state's ballot for president, not just for Obama, but for all future candidates," Corsi adds. "As the United States continues to experience a new wave of immigration and our society becomes more diverse, we are certain to get future candidates for president whose birth circumstances may not make them natural-born citizens within the meaning of Article 2, Section 1."

WND confirmed the following measures were brought up – and shot down – in their respective states.

Arizona: House Bill 2177, which requires a candidate to submit to the Arizona secretary of state a long-form birth certificate, or various other birth proofs in case the candidate doesn't possess such a document, made it further in the process than any of the other bills, save New Hampshire's.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

As WND reported, the measure passed through the Arizona Legislature, but was vetoed on April 18 by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who said, "I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions."

She added: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president ... to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates' among other records. ... This is a bridge too far."

Connecticut: SB 291, which requires candidates to provide "an original birth certificate," was referred to the state Senate's Joint Committee on Government, Administration and Elections, where it has lingered since Jan. 20.

Georgia: HB 37, submitted by State Rep. Bobby Franklin, requires only that candidates provide "original documentation" demonstrating eligibility. On Jan. 24, it was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, where the state's online records don't even list the bill as having been placed on the committee's agenda.

Indiana: Sen. Mike Delph proposed SB114, which requires candidates for president and vice president to produce their birth certificates. It as assigned to committee, where it has remained, stuck, since Jan. 5.

Iowa: SF 368, proposed by Sen. Kent Sorenson, requires birth certificates be filed for presidential and vice presidential candidates. It was referred to committee on March 2, subcommittee on March 3, and there it remains.

Louisiana: Rep. Alan Seabuagh and Sen. A.G. Crowe were assured of their governor's signature if they could pass HB 561, which requires not only those seeking the presidency, but also those seeking election to the U.S. House and Senate, to submit "an original or certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance," among other affidavits verifying residency and eligibility requirements.

"It's not part of our package, but if the legislature passes it, we'll sign it," Kyle Plotkin, press secretary to Gov. Bobby Jindal, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Seabaugh told the New Orleans newspaper he's concerned that of all of the eligibility cases brought to court, attorneys representing the president have prevented any from reaching the stage in which evidence could be obtained.

"Not one of them has ever been decided on the merits," Seabaugh told the newspaper. "As an attorney, that's offensive to me."

HB 561 was referred to House and Governmental Affairs committee on April 25, and nothing has happened on it since.

Maine: LD 34, which requires candidates for nomination by primary election or petition to provide copies of their birth certificates and driver's licenses, was killed by unanimous vote in committee on March 17. It is now listed as "dead" in the state's Senate files.

Missouri:HB 283, which requires only "proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship," was given a public hearing on March 1, but was never placed on the legislative calendar.

Montana: Rep. Bob Wagner's HB 205 requires presidential candidates to file a copy of their birth certificate as well as "documentary proof" of citizenship and residency. The bill died in committee on April 28.

Nebraska: Sen. Mark Christensen's LB 654 seeks not only proof of birth, but harkens back to 18th century Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, who defined natural-born citizenship around the time of the writing of the Constitution as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

LB 654 requires a candidate seeking the presidency to not only provide a copy of his or her long-form birth certificate, but also proof of his or her parents' citizenship at the time of the candidate's birth and a signed affidavit affirming, "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth. On the day I was born, both my birth mother and birth father were citizens of the United States of America."

The bill was referred to the Nebraska Senate's Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, where it has remained since Jan. 21.

Oklahoma State Sen. Rick Brinkley

Oklahoma: State Sen. Rick Brinkley's SB 91 came very close to becoming law.

SB 91 requires that all candidates – not just those for president – shall "provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office." It requires the secretary of state to write up rules to specify the documentation that will be required and mandates that the documents be made available for public inspection.

Referencing Oklahoma voters' strong support for State Question 746, a voter ID ballot measure approved last year, Brinkley said it was sensible that candidates meet the same minimal requirement.

"In November, 74 percent of Oklahoma voters were in agreement that they should have to show an ID and prove who they were and that they were eligible to vote," said Brinkley, R-Owasso. "I believe the voters would agree that those on the ballot should have to do the same thing."

Though a version of Brinkley's bill passed in both the Oklahoma House and Senate, a series of amendments ultimately doomed it.

A representative from Sen. Brinkley's office told WND the bill went to conference to attempt to reconcile the House and Senate versions, only to die in that committee on May 18. The representative explained Brinkley would have to run the bill through again before the legislature would reconsider it.

Pennsylvania: HB 1350, introduced by State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, requires presidential candidates to provide "proof" of natural-born citizenship.

"This legislation is intended to send the message that even those candidates who are running for our nation's highest office are not above the law," Metcalfe said in his announcement about the plan. "Final passage of this legislation will provide additional levels of both trust and verification that anyone seeking elected office in Pennsylvania is just as much an American citizen as the voters supporting their candidacy.

"America's founding fathers said it best, 'a well-informed electorate taught to know and prize their God-given rights cannot be enslaved,'" he continued. "As a veteran and an elected official who takes an oath of office, just like every past and future president of the United States, to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of the citizens I represent, it is beyond perplexing and greatly troubling that a political candidate can ascend to the highest levels of government without providing sufficient documentation verifying his or her place of birth or American citizenship."

HB 1350 was referred to House State Government committee, with no action listed since April 20, even though Metcalfe is majority chair of the committee.

Tennessee: SB 0366, introduced by Sen. Mae Beavers, also takes up the issue of allegiance in the definition of "natural-born citizen," requiring both "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance" and "a sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States."

SB 0366 was referred to committee on Feb. 10, and has remained dormant since.

Texas State Rep. Leo Berman

Texas: HB 295, proposed by Rep. Leo Berman, adds to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.

Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.

HB 295 has been stuck in committee since Feb. 15

There also was, during the last session of Congress in Washington, D.C., U.S. Rep. Bill Posey's bill H.R. 1503, which stated:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 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."

The bill also provided:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural-born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

Though it had more than a dozen sponsors, Posey's bill died at the end of the last Congress.

A petition, already signed by tens of thousands, calls state lawmakers to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

"There is a loophole in the Constitution," Corsi told WND, "such that Article 2, Section 1, requires a president to be a 'natural-born citizen,' but no agency of government is given the authority or the responsibility to examine birth credentials to determine if a particular candidate qualifies to run for president.

"As I explained in "Where's the Birth Certificate?" the traditional understanding of 'natural-born Citizen,' back to the Founding Fathers, was that the designation of a natural-born citizen was a subset of citizens born in the United States to two parents who were U.S. citizens," he continued. "The political left has wanted to expand the definition of natural-born citizens to include the 14th Amendment, such that native-born citizens – those persons who are citizens because they were born in the United States – would be considered 'natural-born citizens,' even if neither of their parents were U.S. citizens. Such a loose definition would allow even 'anchor babies' born in the United States by two illegal immigrants to be considered eligible to run for president."

Corsi added, "To avoid having a double standard, where the mainstream media and Democrats challenge Republican candidates for president such as John McCain under Article 2, Section 1, (because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone) but place no scrutiny on candidates like Barack Obama, precisely because Obama did not have two U.S. citizens as his parents at birth, we need to create a governmental mechanism at the state or federal level that can apply consistent standards to all presidential candidates in the future, regardless of party affiliation, race, sex or age.

"No serious presidential candidate would want any state to determine that he or she cannot run for president because they are not a natural-born citizen. So, if one state passes an eligibility law, that might be the trigger to put into place a national solution," he concluded.

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND poll.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Ex-CIA: 'Forged document' released as birth certificate

A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY

Gen. Paul Vallely: Congress afraid to probe 'possible felony' over fears of 'black backlash'

By Bob Unruh

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, the chief of Stand Up America, a national security expert and Fox News contributor, says the "Certificate of Live Birth" released in April by the White House as "proof positive" of President Obama's Hawaiian birth is a forgery, but the FBI is covering the fraud and no one in Congress is willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a "black backlash" if the failings of the nation's first black president are revealed.

In an interview today with Greg Corombos for WND, Vallely, who previously has expressed concerns about whether the Obama administration is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, said, "His actual birth certificate has never been found in Hawaii nor released from Hawaii hospital there, Kapiolani hospital there, if it in fact did exist."

"We've had three CIA agents, retired, and some of their analytical associates look at it, and all came to the same conclusion, that even the long-form was a forged document," Vallely said.

Get the New York Times best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

"No members of Congress will take this on. The word I get out of Washington is that they don't want to challenge this because it would be in fact a felony offense and in some cases may be even treasonous and [they are] afraid of a black backlash from some of the urban areas," Vallely said.

"But that's a very poor excuse for not taking necessary steps to make sure this president in fact is a legitimate president under Article 2 and he is a born U.S. citizen."

The departments of government designed to uncover wrongdoing, in this case, are on the wrong side, he said.

"I think they're (the FBI) covering for this administration. I think the corruption within this administration is so proliferated through the agencies of government now, we're just in a bad situation here. I think the lack of confidence in our government is growing and many feel that not only all the members of Congress but even our courts are corrupted at this time," he said.

The questions over Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the requirements in the Constitution that call for a "natural born citizen" have been raised since before he was elected.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed and challenges organized but none have uncovered Obama's documentation. For most of the past few years, his supporters relied on an online image of a Hawaiian short-form "Certification of Live Birth" as proof of his Hawaiian birth, claiming it was the only documentation available from the state.

However, just as the New York Times best-seller, "Where's the Birth Certificate: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President," by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., was about to be released, Obama dispatched a private attorney to Hawaii to fetch the supposed long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" and explained that the record now would include the full documentation available from Hawaii.

The original hard-copy birth document, whatever it actually is, has never been seen by the public.

Image released by the White House April 27, 2011

Corsi told WND, "The list is growing of those openly acknowledging the Obama long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27 is a forgery.

"That former CIA agents are beginning to weigh in on the White House forgery is important. Too many experts remain afraid to speak out about what is an obvious forgery, fearful that openly speaking out against Obama will hurt their income. That Gen. Vallely has now spoken out shows the cracks are widening around the White House façade that the Obama birth certificate is a legitimate document."

He said, "Vallely is right in saying that millions of Americans are still trying to find out who Barack Obama is.

"The cover-up in Hawaii is still continuing. Every professional forensic document examiner knows the best evidence of the Obama long-form birth certificate is not the electronic Adobe file released on the White House website, but the original document the Hawaii DOH is still hiding in its vault, unwilling to let the public see it with their own eyes. Why won't the White House allow a team of independent professional forensic document examiners inspect and authenticate the original birth certificate document? It makes no sense — unless of course there is no long-form birth certificate in the Hawaii DOH vault."

When Obama released the purported long-form certificate, officials in the Hawaii Department of Health and governor's office refused to simply confirm to WND that the image being presented by Obama was an accurate representation of the records maintained by the state.

Vallely said the document should "thoroughly be analyzed by resident FBI officials and analysts to determine if in fact and validate whether it's forged or real."

"One of the apparent flaws in that document was they listed Kenya as the place of birth of Obama's father, but Kenya was not an established country at that time," he noted.

"There's still a lot of controversy about it, and some of us would just like to have this thing clearly authenticated."

He also cited one of the many issues raised by document experts who have challenged the "birth certificate's" authenticity – the layering in the Adobe computer file.

And Vallely said he knows some would not be satisfied with anything the Obama administration would release, which is a problem, in itself, for the White House.

"That's true, because they don't believe he is eligible. You have a fairly growing contingent out there."

Vallely also made similar statements in an online radio program in which he supported Lakin, the Army doctor who refused orders because neither the military nor the White House would document Obama's eligibility. He spent five months in Fort Leavenworth and only recently was released. His comments start at about 3:30 of the YouTube video:

There, Vallely said, "Obama's birth certificate – I've had retired CIA agents and other investigators go over the birth certificate that was produced and by far, 10 out of 10 have said it's a forgery. So we still have that corruptness going on in the White House. There's a great number of organizations and people still trying to find out who Barack Obama is, where he was born, what his legitimacy is as president of the United States. We know for sure that the Constitution has been violated in Article 2, particularly when you look at the natural-born status."

Only one day earlier, officials in the state of Hawaii claimed that the original of the Obama 'birth certificate' document – the document posted online by the White House – remains "confidential" and cannot be produced in response to a subpoena in a lawsuit over Obama's legitimacy.

The image released by Obama has been challenged by a number of document imaging analysts as a fraud, and it doesn't align with descriptions of it by Obama supporters.

For instance, two weeks before Obama finally released his "long-form birth certificate," Hawaii's former Health Department chief Chiyome Fukino – the one official who claimed to have examined the original birth document under lock and key in Hawaii – was interviewed by NBC News' national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who reported that Fukino told him she had seen the original birth certificate and that it was "half typed and half handwritten."

However, the document released by the White House was entirely typed. Only the signatures and two dates at the very bottom were "handwritten." What Fukino described apparently is a different document from what Obama released to the public.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Astonishing lawsuit: Make exposé vanish

FAHRENHEIT 451

Attorney: 'This book at any time can be taken off shelves forever'

By Art Moore

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad

The powerful Washington, D.C., Islamic lobby group established as a front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas is asking a federal judge to expunge all copies of a WND book that exposes its ties to radical jihad through original documents secured in a daring undercover operation.

In its latest court pleadings in a lawsuit against WND co-author David Gaubatz and his son Chris, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, effectively demands that the blockbuster book "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America" be removed from bookstores, online retailers and any supplier and "returned" to the Muslim group.

"This book at any time can be taken off the shelves forever and kept in the hands of Hamas," warned Gaubatz attorney Daniel Horowitz.

Fight back against CAIR's attack on First Amendment by making a contribution to WND's "Legal Defense Fund." Donations of $25 or more entitle you to free copy of "Muslim Mafia" – the book so devastating to CAIR the group is trying to ban it.

After filing two unsuccessful versions of its complaint, CAIR has filed yet another amended complaint that asks federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., to bar the Gaubatzes and anyone related to their effort from publishing the documents and recordings obtained in the undercover operation.

CAIR interpreted the judge's order to return all copies of the documents as a demand to also return "copies published in the book," according to a Joint Status Report filed April 22 in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Horowitz, a frequent television legal analyst based in the San Francisco Bay area, has teamed with two other high-profile lawyers in the case. Bernard Grimm, in Washington, D.C., is a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, CNN and Court TV. Martin Garbus, in New York City, is perhaps the country's best known First Amendment lawyer.

First Amendment chill

Horowitz believes CAIR knows it can't win the case, but he cautioned that the Saudi-funded group "can chill the First Amendment by making it so expensive to speak against them that no one can challenge them."

Garbus has been at the center of numerous groundbreaking and highly controversial First Amendment cases over the past five decades, from Daniel Ellsberg's battle over the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War and Lenny Bruce's famous obscenity charges to radio host Don Imus' lawsuit against CBS after he was fired for his remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Martin Garbus

In the 1980s, Garbus represented author Peter Matthiessen in a libel suit that stopped publisher Viking from subsequent paperback and foreign publications of the book "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse." South Dakota Gov. William Janklow and an FBI agent – who claim they were falsely portrayed in the book – tried to stop publication in three states, waging an eight-year litigation in which booksellers and book buyers were threatened. Janklow called stores and warned them of huge damage suits if they put the title on sale. Many terrified store managers removed the books, but Garbus and Matthiessen prevailed in court.

"Libel suits are the vehicle for this censorship, and they can be just as effective as government injunctions or physical threats," Garbus wrote in the afterword to the re-publication of Matthiessen's book in 1992.

"Even if lawsuits ultimately fail in court, they can be deadly," Garbus wrote. "The cost, time, and harassment value of extensive litigation can compel publishers and authors to delete controversial passages from books critical of government officials and their policies."

Garbus represented film director Spike Lee when a lawsuit charging copyright infringement threatened to stop the release of the 1992 feature "Malcolm X," which starred Denzel Washington as the slain black leader. Lee's use of 45 seconds of the well-known footage of the confrontation between Rodney King and Los Angeles police officers was challenged by the plumber who captured the chase on video, George Holliday.

Holliday claimed Lee knowingly negotiated a licensing agreement with a party who had no authority to grant it, the Los Angeles Times reported at the time. The filmmaker, in turn, accused Holliday of extortion, alleging he wanted more than the $50,000 agreed on for use of the tape.

Garbus argued in court documents that eliminating the King footage "would destroy the artistic integrity of Lee's motion picture." The attorney, the Times reported, contended that the significance of the tape as a record of "one of the most shocking and dramatic moments in the history of race relations in America" precluded Holliday on free speech grounds from copyrighting the footage. "There is simply no other way for Spike Lee to use the fact – or idea – of the Rodney King beating without using the videotape," Garbus said in court documents.

Similarly, in the "Muslim Mafia" case, Garbus believes Americans have an interest in exposure of the CAIR documents, because they are relevant to federal law enforcement officials' concerns about the group's ties to terrorist operatives that threaten the nation's security.

The FBI cut off ties to CAIR in January 2009 after the group was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case in Texas, the largest terrorism-finance case in U.S. history.

No defense of book's claims

Garbus has said the Gaubatz lawsuit has similarities to his defense of legal author and CNN commentator Jeffrey Toobin, who allegedly violated a confidentiality agreement with Iran-Contra investigator Lawrence E. Walsh in the early 1990s when he published a book about his experience as a member of the prosecution team. Garbus won the case on First Amendment grounds.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad shakes hands with intern Chris Gaubatz, aka David Marshall, at CAIR's national headquarters in Washington, D.C., in 2008

CAIR alleges Chris Gaubatz signed a confidentiality agreement when he worked as an intern for six months, but Gaubatz denies it, and CAIR reportedly says it has no copy of any agreement.

The group alleges it suffered damage after the Gaubatzes obtained access to CAIR internal documents under false pretenses and made recordings of officials and employees without consent.

Horowitz argues the complaint does not list any specific damages done to the organization by "Muslim Mafia." He believes CAIR's failure to state damages – other than those protected by the First Amendment – provides Judge Kollar-Kotelly with the basis for dismissing the case.

Regardless of how she rules, the delay of more than one year in her decision is a "clear refusal to ban speech" immediately, as CAIR desires, Horowitz asserts.

Posing as a Muslim, Chris Gaubatz gathered some 12,000 pages of documents, which were meant to be shredded, while serving as an intern at CAIR's national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building. Information gleaned from the documents was published in "Muslim Mafia," which demonstrated CAIR's connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that spawned al-Qaida and Hamas and stated in writing its intent to put America under Islamic law and the authority of the Quran.

In the lawsuit, however, CAIR, a self-described Muslim civil-rights group, does not defend itself against the book's claims.

'Subverting the process'

Kollar-Kotelly is considering CAIR's motion to file an amended complaint after the first one failed to gain traction. The Gaubatzes' legal team, meanwhile, has filed a motion to dismiss the case, pending Kollar-Kotelly's ruling.

In April, however, before the judge decided on the second complaint, CAIR attorney Nadhira Al-Khalili informed the Gaubatzes' lawyers that CAIR planned to file yet another amended complaint that added causes of action based on "newly discovered information."

Horowitz has said he hopes the judge will dismiss the first complaint and then determine whether the second and third are any different. If there is no difference, Horowitz has explained to WND, she can reject CAIR's request to amend the complaint and then throw out the case.

Responding in a letter dated April 7, Horowitz told Al-Khalili that the request for a motion to amend is another attempt by CAIR to "subvert" the legal process already in motion.

Horowitz warned Al-Khalili that any "attempt to circumvent the normal process" of the Gaubatzes' motion to dismiss and CAIR's motion to amend is "simply a further tactic to prolong this frivolous and harassing litigation."

"It will compound the already unacceptable attorney's fees and continue to chill my client's First Amendment rights," Horowitz wrote.

CAIR continues to keep its lawsuit alive despite the exposure by Horowitz and his colleagues of the fact that CAIR doesn't even legally exist and was therefore unqualified to file the lawsuit.

He warns that WND must continue to be vigilant: "In the end, they can just keep getting more and more money from overseas and burn out opposition with lawsuits."

While CAIR repeatedly has denied it receives foreign support, the covert operation that produced "Muslim Mafia" obtained video footage that captured CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper boasting of his ability to bring in a half million dollars of "overseas money," including from Saudi Arabia.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The CAIR legal attack on WND's author is far from over. WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. The book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.