BORN IN THE USA?
McInerney: Eligibility issue 'of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined'
A retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons says the disclosure of Barack Obama's documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not just to the defense of an officer challenging the president's status, but to the preservation of the nation itself.
The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed today by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
Lakin had invited his own court-martial because he is unable to follow orders under the chain of command with Obama at its head unless the president's eligibility is documented.
A hearing is scheduled in Lakin's court-martial case Thursday at which a ruling is expected on defense requests for the very evidence that McInerney is citing.
The general, who retired in 1994 after serving as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe, commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing and assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, among other positions, said the chain of command issue is critical, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.
"Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution," he said in the affidavit.
"There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution."
He continued, explaining, "good order and disipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes under great adversity –whether an order is illegal."
"The president of the United States, as the commander in chief, is the source of all military authority," he said. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined."
Lakin is being supported by the American Patriot Foundation, which said the affidavit is for use in Lakin's trial, scheduled Oct. 13-15, as well as Thursday's hearing on the evidence to be allowed in the case.
The group said McInerney is the highest-ranking officer yet to lend public support to Lakin.
A recent poll showed that only about 4 in 10 Americans believe Obama's story of being born in Hawaii.
McInerney's affidavit "acknowledges widespread concerns over the president's constitutional eligibility and demands the president release his birth records or the court authorize discovery," the foundation said.
Lakin's defense counsel has asked for the president's school records as well as a deposition from the custodian of Obama's birth records that may exist in Hawaii.
The hearing is scheduled at 11 a.m. Thursday at Ft. Meade, Md., at the courthouse at 4432 Llewellyn Ave., inside the military base. The court is open to the public.
Lakin is a physician and in his 18th year of service in the Army. He posted a video asking for the court-martial to determine Obama's eligibility.
He is board certified in family medicine and occupational and environmental medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department's outstanding flight surgeons.
McInerney commanded forces equipped withi nuclear weapons.
"In my command capacity I was responsible that the personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential – vital – in the event the use of those weapons were authorized," the general wrote.
"I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the president is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today."
He said Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates."
"It is my opinion that LTC Lakin's request for discovery relating to the president's birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this president whether his service as commander in chief is constitutionally proper.
"He is the one single person in the chain of command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship," he continued. "This determination is fundamental to our republic.
"According to the Constitution, the commander in chief must now, in the face of serious – and widely-held – concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here," McInerney wrote.
Lakin is represented by military counsel and by Paul Rolf Jensen, a civilian attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution.
The foundation says the Army's opinion of Lakin was made clear in an evaluation just before Lakin raised the issue of eligibility.
From Col. Dale Block: "Dr. Lakin is an extremely talented, highly knowledgeable senior Army clinician ... he can always be counted on to provide me with expert advice. ... LTC Lakin is clearly one of the top clinicians in the Northern Regional Medical Command. He has superb clinical skills, rapport with patients and staff. ... Terry is the best choice for tough assignments. ... Already on the promotion list to colonel, he should be groomed for positions of greater responsibility."
But Lakin, the foundation says, has been compelled to act because he swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Obama's eligibility to be president has been questioned, he argues, and Obama has refused all efforts to obtain documents that could determine his eligibility.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.
Lakin declined to follow deployment orders after he tried through military channels to affirm the validity of orders under Obama's command and was rebuffed. He had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan again.
Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook.
In at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head.
Lakin's attorneys have said they now are demanding "discovery" of Obama's records, and that in such a dispute that information is critical. The multitude of civil cases that have been brought over the Obama eligibility dispute all have failed to reach that process because of federal judges who have ruled on issues generally involving "standing." The judges have concluded that damages from an ineligible president suffered by the plaintiffs would not be more for them than any other member of the public, so there is not a specific damage or danger.
Lakin's counsel, Jensen, has explained that the Lakin case is different, since his client is being processed on criminal charges over the issue – a status that puts him in imminent danger of specific and personal "damages."
The courts already have shown a weakness on the subject of Obama's records. The discovery-of-evidence issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.
Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the SafeguardOurConstitution website. Hemenway brought a previous court challenge, now on appeal, on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.
The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" and, therefore, resolved.
Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.
"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.
Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."
Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.
"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.
The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.
In a separate case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threatened sanctions against attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court quickly backed off, however, when Apuzzo noted that under the rules of court procedure, being subjected to sanctions and penalties would give him the right to discovery in the case, possibly including Obama's birth certificate.
The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and, while the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Critics say Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted in his book his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn't even born in Hawaii.
Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, has said there "definitely" are problems with Obama's Hawaii birth story.
"As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii," he said.
Lakin had posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him over the issue.
As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to document his eligibility March 30.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
How Obama Lost America
by Chris Field (Townhall.com Magazine)
The president's agenda, arrogance and attitude have dulled that shiny, gold-plated image so many Americans bought. Now, his hubris and damn-the-voters posture are leading his party to a 2010 disaster.
President George W. Bush was a buoy for Republicans in 2002, the first midterm election of his presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is like an anvil. How did things go so wrong?
His predicament is partly the result of bad luck. Obama did not create the bad economy, even if it helped him get elected. He did not cause the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, even if a majority of Americans now frown upon his response to it. Both circumstances are now exacerbating his current problems, but neither can explain the relatively sudden crackup that polls suggest happened between late 2009 and early 2010.
The simplest explanation for Obama’s demise is ObamaCare, but it’s still not enough just to point to the law itself. Think of the health care debate as the small chip in your windshield, which, though small, compromises its integrity. When your car hits the next big bump, the chip becomes a crack, which then grows and spreads with every little jolt. In similar fashion, Obama’s ruthless push for health care reform—and his failure to heed the public’s negative reaction—created the first cracks in Obama’s administration. They have since widened and multiplied with each new disaster, gaffe and piece of bad economic news.
-----
From the September 2010 cover story of Townhall Magazine. Order your subscription today to ensure you get this powerful issue.
The president's agenda, arrogance and attitude have dulled that shiny, gold-plated image so many Americans bought. Now, his hubris and damn-the-voters posture are leading his party to a 2010 disaster.
President George W. Bush was a buoy for Republicans in 2002, the first midterm election of his presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is like an anvil. How did things go so wrong?
His predicament is partly the result of bad luck. Obama did not create the bad economy, even if it helped him get elected. He did not cause the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, even if a majority of Americans now frown upon his response to it. Both circumstances are now exacerbating his current problems, but neither can explain the relatively sudden crackup that polls suggest happened between late 2009 and early 2010.
The simplest explanation for Obama’s demise is ObamaCare, but it’s still not enough just to point to the law itself. Think of the health care debate as the small chip in your windshield, which, though small, compromises its integrity. When your car hits the next big bump, the chip becomes a crack, which then grows and spreads with every little jolt. In similar fashion, Obama’s ruthless push for health care reform—and his failure to heed the public’s negative reaction—created the first cracks in Obama’s administration. They have since widened and multiplied with each new disaster, gaffe and piece of bad economic news.
-----
From the September 2010 cover story of Townhall Magazine. Order your subscription today to ensure you get this powerful issue.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Elitists' deepest, darkest secrets revealed
Book Review and Special Offer
Finally, a crystal-clear explanation of how America is being transformed
Although it's been variously described as "pure evil" and "the best book of the 21st century," one thing's for sure – David Kupelian's new blockbuster is deeply impacting many people, and today only, "How Evil Works" is available – hardcover and autographed – for only $4.95, an amazing $21 discount!
Recently featured on Fox News' "Hannity," CBN's Newswatch and C-SPAN, Kupelian's sequel to his classic culture-war bestseller "The Marketing of Evil" is making waves everywhere. It unmasks everything from Team Obama (Chapter 1: "Why We Elect Liars As Leaders") to radical Islam (Chapter 3: "How Terrorism Really Works") to today's rampant narcissism (Chapter 4: "The Secret Curse of Celebrity") to wholesale rejection of God (Chapter 7: "Why Militant Atheism is Becoming a Badge of Honor") to fighting back effectively and winning (Chapter 11: "Turning the Tables on Evil in America").
* "How Evil Works" is "startlingly insightful," says No. 1 New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi. "David Kupelian reveals the hidden mechanisms that allow lies and deception to take root in modern America. A truly important book."
* Radio legend Barry Farber says: "With the unapologetic outrage of a saint and the fearless fury of a General Patton, here comes David Kupelian turning a blowtorch of good upon the putrid cobwebs of evil."
* J. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel says "'How Evil Works' has the same effect on your brain that yawning has on your ears at high altitude. Things just suddenly pop with crystal clarity."
* And talk radio superstar Sean Hannity calls "How Evil Works" "terrific," telling listeners, "This is a powerful book ... I couldn't put it down."
Until tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific, you can get your copy of this sensational book for only $4.95 – by taking advantage of this special offer, exclusively from WorldNetDaily.
But wait – it gets better. There's another part to this deal. When you order "How Evil Works" for $4.95, we will also send you, FREE, three sizzling issues of WND's critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower.
Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best newsmagazine. Each issue focuses like a powerful laser on a single topic – from how to survive financial meltdown to understanding the secret agendas of America's establishment elite – explored thoroughly, and with facts and insight such as you've never seen anywhere else. Recent issues include "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars," "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers," "THE GREAT AWAKENING: How tea partiers are setting a new course for America," "NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick" and "BLACK HOLE: The shocking truth about the U.S. economy – and what you can and must do."
So, for $4.95 you get a signed copy of "How Evil Works" by David Kupelian, plus you get three sample issues of Whistleblower – in hopes, of course, that you will do what most people do, which is to become a long-term Whistleblower subscriber.
(This offer does not apply to current Whistleblower subscribers or those living outside the U.S. However, if you are already a Whistleblower subscriber, or if you want to subscribe now, we have an outstanding offer for you to check out!)
Important: For this very special $4.95 offer, you will receive "How Evil Works" as well as three free issues of Whistleblower magazine. Also included with your free issues will be a renewal notice for a one-year Whistleblower subscription. If you wish to renew, do nothing, and your credit or debit card will be charged the discounted annual renewal rate of only $39.95. (There's no risk, because at any time you can cancel your subscription for a full refund on the unused portion.) If you don't want to renew, simply cancel by calling 1-800-4WNDCOM (800-496-3266) or by emailing canceltrial@wnd.com before the charge date printed on the renewal card you'll receive. Either way, the book and the 3 free issues are yours to keep. (Only one copy of "How Evil Works" at this price per household. Offer good only in the U.S.)
Please note: If you like your three free Whistleblower issues and renew, when your Whistleblower subscription eventually expires, you'll receive another renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically at the low prevailing rate by chargingyour credit or debit card . As always, there's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full refund of the unused portion of your subscription.
"This is an amazing offer, one that sounds almost too good to be true," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "But it is true – our way of giving loyal WND readers a fantastic bargain, while at the same time introducing them to our monthly magazine."
"I urge readers to take advantage of this special deal now, because it's good for today only," Farah added.
Order your copy of David Kupelian's "How Evil Works" for only $4.95! Special offer ends tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific.
If you prefer to order by phone rather than online, call our toll-free customer-service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central.
Finally, a crystal-clear explanation of how America is being transformed
Although it's been variously described as "pure evil" and "the best book of the 21st century," one thing's for sure – David Kupelian's new blockbuster is deeply impacting many people, and today only, "How Evil Works" is available – hardcover and autographed – for only $4.95, an amazing $21 discount!
Recently featured on Fox News' "Hannity," CBN's Newswatch and C-SPAN, Kupelian's sequel to his classic culture-war bestseller "The Marketing of Evil" is making waves everywhere. It unmasks everything from Team Obama (Chapter 1: "Why We Elect Liars As Leaders") to radical Islam (Chapter 3: "How Terrorism Really Works") to today's rampant narcissism (Chapter 4: "The Secret Curse of Celebrity") to wholesale rejection of God (Chapter 7: "Why Militant Atheism is Becoming a Badge of Honor") to fighting back effectively and winning (Chapter 11: "Turning the Tables on Evil in America").
* "How Evil Works" is "startlingly insightful," says No. 1 New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi. "David Kupelian reveals the hidden mechanisms that allow lies and deception to take root in modern America. A truly important book."
* Radio legend Barry Farber says: "With the unapologetic outrage of a saint and the fearless fury of a General Patton, here comes David Kupelian turning a blowtorch of good upon the putrid cobwebs of evil."
* J. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel says "'How Evil Works' has the same effect on your brain that yawning has on your ears at high altitude. Things just suddenly pop with crystal clarity."
* And talk radio superstar Sean Hannity calls "How Evil Works" "terrific," telling listeners, "This is a powerful book ... I couldn't put it down."
Until tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific, you can get your copy of this sensational book for only $4.95 – by taking advantage of this special offer, exclusively from WorldNetDaily.
But wait – it gets better. There's another part to this deal. When you order "How Evil Works" for $4.95, we will also send you, FREE, three sizzling issues of WND's critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower.
Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best newsmagazine. Each issue focuses like a powerful laser on a single topic – from how to survive financial meltdown to understanding the secret agendas of America's establishment elite – explored thoroughly, and with facts and insight such as you've never seen anywhere else. Recent issues include "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars," "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers," "THE GREAT AWAKENING: How tea partiers are setting a new course for America," "NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick" and "BLACK HOLE: The shocking truth about the U.S. economy – and what you can and must do."
So, for $4.95 you get a signed copy of "How Evil Works" by David Kupelian, plus you get three sample issues of Whistleblower – in hopes, of course, that you will do what most people do, which is to become a long-term Whistleblower subscriber.
(This offer does not apply to current Whistleblower subscribers or those living outside the U.S. However, if you are already a Whistleblower subscriber, or if you want to subscribe now, we have an outstanding offer for you to check out!)
Important: For this very special $4.95 offer, you will receive "How Evil Works" as well as three free issues of Whistleblower magazine. Also included with your free issues will be a renewal notice for a one-year Whistleblower subscription. If you wish to renew, do nothing, and your credit or debit card will be charged the discounted annual renewal rate of only $39.95. (There's no risk, because at any time you can cancel your subscription for a full refund on the unused portion.) If you don't want to renew, simply cancel by calling 1-800-4WNDCOM (800-496-3266) or by emailing canceltrial@wnd.com before the charge date printed on the renewal card you'll receive. Either way, the book and the 3 free issues are yours to keep. (Only one copy of "How Evil Works" at this price per household. Offer good only in the U.S.)
Please note: If you like your three free Whistleblower issues and renew, when your Whistleblower subscription eventually expires, you'll receive another renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically at the low prevailing rate by chargingyour credit or debit card . As always, there's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full refund of the unused portion of your subscription.
"This is an amazing offer, one that sounds almost too good to be true," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "But it is true – our way of giving loyal WND readers a fantastic bargain, while at the same time introducing them to our monthly magazine."
"I urge readers to take advantage of this special deal now, because it's good for today only," Farah added.
Order your copy of David Kupelian's "How Evil Works" for only $4.95! Special offer ends tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific.
If you prefer to order by phone rather than online, call our toll-free customer-service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Glenn Beck: Obama Administration 'Most Corrupt of All Time'
By: David A. Patten
Fox News host Glenn Beck tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama's White House qualifies as the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.
"There are so many things that this administration has done that I think will go down in history as ... it's going to go down in history as the most corrupt administration ever," Beck says in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview.
Beck's no-holds-barred assessment of the Obama administration's ethics comes as he is promoting an Aug. 28 celebration at the Lincoln Memorial called Restoring Honor.
The remark came as Newsmax.TV sought Beck's reaction to a recent statement that GOP Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl attributed to Obama.
Kyl said he asked Obama to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, but the president refused because it would reduce Republicans' incentive to compromise on immigration reform. The White House denied Kyl's account, but former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo wrote in op-ed column that Obama's stance "constitutes an impeachable offense."
Asked if he agrees with Tancredo, Beck replies "I'll leave that up to them."
But he goes on to say: "If the story is ever told, if the journalists ever decide to regain their soul to their journalist god – whoever that is, Walter Lippmann or I don't know who – if they ever care to redeem their soul, and actually look into the corruption and things that are going on in this administration, this administration will be exposed as the most corrupt of all time."
The Fox News luminary added that former President George W. Bush also failed in his duty to secure the border.
Beck spoke at length about Restoring Honor, described as a non-political effort to re-establish the values expressed when the nation was created.
"Trying to restore our country," Beck explains, "it's impossible to do it if we don't have honor."
According to the GlennBeck.com/828 website, the Restoring Honor celebration will pay tribute to America's military personnel for their embodiment of the virtue of honor.
The event is free, and all proceeds raised will go to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which awards scholarships to the children of special-operations personnel who die in combat or training.
In the interview, Beck points to a recent Gallup poll that shows the 76 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the U.S. military – much higher than the public has in any other institution.
Congress, by comparison, enjoys the confidence of 11 percent. The presidency has the confidence of 36 percent.
Big business and organized labor score 19 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
"I was pondering why [the military], and it's because they're honorable," Becks says. "They'll do the tough things. They'll do them because they're the right things to do. And we still believe in them … generally speaking, they are the only things we still believe in, that and our religious organizations."
Controversy seems to follow Beck around wherever he goes these days, so it's no surprise his foes on the left are planning to hold a demonstration against his Restoring Honor rally. How could an event supporting U.S. war heroes and their families possibly be controversial?
Well, it turns out Aug. 28 happens to be the 47th anniversary of the day Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, which also was delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck says the choice of dates was accidental. But a smattering of protesters say they'll also be there on the Mall.
Beck opens up in the interview about the key role faith has played in securing the nation's future. Helping Americans rediscover their true identity, and their most cherished beliefs, is even more important than influencing political outcomes, he says.
"I have news for you," Beck tells Newsmax. "If anybody thinks this is going to be an easy transition, either into socialism, into the slavery of Marxism, or the transition back into our founding principles, it's not going to be an easy ride.
"It's going to get very, very bumpy. We're not at the bottom yet. However, there's one way to make it a lot easier. That is, for us to be the people we truly are, not the people that we've allowed ourselves to become. To reconnect with those inner virtues and values within ourselves.
"We do it naturally at the time of trouble, we did it on 9/12," he adds. "That's who we naturally are. Now let's master that to be able to be that way without the crisis, so we can logically think our way out of the trouble that we're in."
The Fox News host and perennial best-selling author also describes Sarah Palin's role in the event. "She's going to be introducing some of the heroes who will be on stage … amazing, amazing military people," he says. "She'll be introducing them, and talking about the honor and integrity of our military."
Other speakers scheduled to appear at Restoring Honor include Marcus Luttrell, former Navy Seal and author of the best-selling “Lone Survivor”; and Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. Country music artist Jo Dee Messina is expected to perform as well.
During the exclusive interview, Beck reserves his toughest critique for the current administration.
Asked whether a court decision granting the administration the authority require people to buy health insurance would lead to tyranny, Beck says, "Totally. I mean, we're there. If they can do this … It's unconstitutional."
Beck says he won't try to predict how the courts might rule on the state-level challenge to healthcare reform's individual mandate. But he insists his track record for making predictions has been pretty good.
"Everyone who disagreed with me two years ago, said none of these things can happen. … I'd ask them 'Why?' They'd say, 'Well, because, you don't understand politics.' Or 'You don't understand this or you don't understand this.'
"I said, 'You don't understand this: They don't care. Progressives don't care. They're not playing on the same rulebook.
"And now you've taken progressives and added revolutionary right next to them. The game is entirely different. So, predictions: Think the unthinkable," Beck says.
"What you thought couldn't happen a year ago, has. What you think can't happen next year, could."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Fox News host Glenn Beck tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama's White House qualifies as the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.
"There are so many things that this administration has done that I think will go down in history as ... it's going to go down in history as the most corrupt administration ever," Beck says in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview.
Beck's no-holds-barred assessment of the Obama administration's ethics comes as he is promoting an Aug. 28 celebration at the Lincoln Memorial called Restoring Honor.
The remark came as Newsmax.TV sought Beck's reaction to a recent statement that GOP Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl attributed to Obama.
Kyl said he asked Obama to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, but the president refused because it would reduce Republicans' incentive to compromise on immigration reform. The White House denied Kyl's account, but former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo wrote in op-ed column that Obama's stance "constitutes an impeachable offense."
Asked if he agrees with Tancredo, Beck replies "I'll leave that up to them."
But he goes on to say: "If the story is ever told, if the journalists ever decide to regain their soul to their journalist god – whoever that is, Walter Lippmann or I don't know who – if they ever care to redeem their soul, and actually look into the corruption and things that are going on in this administration, this administration will be exposed as the most corrupt of all time."
The Fox News luminary added that former President George W. Bush also failed in his duty to secure the border.
Beck spoke at length about Restoring Honor, described as a non-political effort to re-establish the values expressed when the nation was created.
"Trying to restore our country," Beck explains, "it's impossible to do it if we don't have honor."
According to the GlennBeck.com/828 website, the Restoring Honor celebration will pay tribute to America's military personnel for their embodiment of the virtue of honor.
The event is free, and all proceeds raised will go to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which awards scholarships to the children of special-operations personnel who die in combat or training.
In the interview, Beck points to a recent Gallup poll that shows the 76 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the U.S. military – much higher than the public has in any other institution.
Congress, by comparison, enjoys the confidence of 11 percent. The presidency has the confidence of 36 percent.
Big business and organized labor score 19 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
"I was pondering why [the military], and it's because they're honorable," Becks says. "They'll do the tough things. They'll do them because they're the right things to do. And we still believe in them … generally speaking, they are the only things we still believe in, that and our religious organizations."
Controversy seems to follow Beck around wherever he goes these days, so it's no surprise his foes on the left are planning to hold a demonstration against his Restoring Honor rally. How could an event supporting U.S. war heroes and their families possibly be controversial?
Well, it turns out Aug. 28 happens to be the 47th anniversary of the day Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, which also was delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck says the choice of dates was accidental. But a smattering of protesters say they'll also be there on the Mall.
Beck opens up in the interview about the key role faith has played in securing the nation's future. Helping Americans rediscover their true identity, and their most cherished beliefs, is even more important than influencing political outcomes, he says.
"I have news for you," Beck tells Newsmax. "If anybody thinks this is going to be an easy transition, either into socialism, into the slavery of Marxism, or the transition back into our founding principles, it's not going to be an easy ride.
"It's going to get very, very bumpy. We're not at the bottom yet. However, there's one way to make it a lot easier. That is, for us to be the people we truly are, not the people that we've allowed ourselves to become. To reconnect with those inner virtues and values within ourselves.
"We do it naturally at the time of trouble, we did it on 9/12," he adds. "That's who we naturally are. Now let's master that to be able to be that way without the crisis, so we can logically think our way out of the trouble that we're in."
The Fox News host and perennial best-selling author also describes Sarah Palin's role in the event. "She's going to be introducing some of the heroes who will be on stage … amazing, amazing military people," he says. "She'll be introducing them, and talking about the honor and integrity of our military."
Other speakers scheduled to appear at Restoring Honor include Marcus Luttrell, former Navy Seal and author of the best-selling “Lone Survivor”; and Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. Country music artist Jo Dee Messina is expected to perform as well.
During the exclusive interview, Beck reserves his toughest critique for the current administration.
Asked whether a court decision granting the administration the authority require people to buy health insurance would lead to tyranny, Beck says, "Totally. I mean, we're there. If they can do this … It's unconstitutional."
Beck says he won't try to predict how the courts might rule on the state-level challenge to healthcare reform's individual mandate. But he insists his track record for making predictions has been pretty good.
"Everyone who disagreed with me two years ago, said none of these things can happen. … I'd ask them 'Why?' They'd say, 'Well, because, you don't understand politics.' Or 'You don't understand this or you don't understand this.'
"I said, 'You don't understand this: They don't care. Progressives don't care. They're not playing on the same rulebook.
"And now you've taken progressives and added revolutionary right next to them. The game is entirely different. So, predictions: Think the unthinkable," Beck says.
"What you thought couldn't happen a year ago, has. What you think can't happen next year, could."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Shopping mall's speech restrictions torpedoed
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Appeals court affirms right 'to engage in casual conversations'
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A court decision written by a candidate for chief justice of the California Supreme Court has torpedoed rules established by a shopping mall to regulate casual conversations among customers.
"The [mall's] rules treat all applicants for noncommercial expressive activity the same way, but the rules are not content neutral because they prohibit or restrict speech unrelated to the mall's interests while permitting speech that is related to the mall's interest. The rules are content based," said the opinion from Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
And those rules, the judge explained, are presumptively unconstitutional.
Get "Back Fired," by William J. Federer, which shows how the faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!
According to the Pacific Justice Institute, which represented a youth pastor targeted by mall enforcement of its speech rules, the case arose after a Matthew Snatchko was arrested at the Roseville Galleria Mall in 2007 for striking up a casual conversation with other shoppers about faith.
Although Snatchko had obtained the shoppers' permission to broach the subject, a nearby store employee disapproved and called mall security guards, who arrested Snatchko. Criminal charges were later dropped, but attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute filed suit to challenge the mall's tight restrictions on speech.
Pacific Justice said that under the mall's rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics such as religion or politics unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.
The new ruling from the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento struck down the mall rules as unconstitutionally vague and restrictive of free speech. The court also awarded costs on appeal to Snatchko and indicated he would be able to collect damages and attorney's fees. The case now heads back to the trial court for implementation of the appellate court's decision.
"We are very pleased with this landmark ruling by the California Court of Appeals that vindicates the right to engage in casual conversations about faith without fear of being arrested," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "This is a great victory for free speech and common sense."
"The rules are unconstitutional on their face under article I, section 2 of the California Constitution, the California constitutional provision which guarantees the right to freespeech," the court ruling found.
The court noted the seemingly innocuous behavior that prompted the mall to arrest the youth pastor.
"Hoping for opportunities to share his Christian faith, Matthew Snatchko, a youth pastor, often went to a large regional shopping mall – the Galleria in Roseville, owned, operated and managed by Westfield (hereafter the Galleria or the mall). While he was in the common area of the mall one evening, Snatchko approached three young women in their late teens, asked them if they were willing to talk with him, and upon receiving their consent, engaged them in conversation,which included with their permission his sharing with them principles of his faith. He did not raise his voice or otherwise create a scene. He did not distribute any literature. He did not solicit money or other contributions of any kind. He did not ask them to join his church. He did not block mall patrons," thecourt said.
"Nevertheless, a nearby store employee called the mall's security office and requested they investigate Snatchko's actions. A security officer responded and observed what he believed to be nervous behavior by the young women. Snatchko did not observe any expression or conduct by the women indicating they were nervous or that they did not want to continue the conversation. It appeared to Snatchko that the security officer stopped and listened to his conversation with the women."
The court continued, "The security officer approached and asked Snatchko to stop what he was doing or leave the mall. When Snatchko refused, the security officer called for backup. A senior security officer responded and instructed Snatchko to leave. As Snatchko continued to refuse, the security officers forcibly placed Snatchko under citizen's arrest, handcuffed him and escorted him to the security office where they turned him over to Roseville police."
However, the charges later were dismissed and the Placer County district attorney stipulated that Snatchko was factually innocent of the charges.
Snatchko then filed the court action to challenge the speech rules.
"Westfield's rules burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further its legitimate safety and convenience interests. The rules prohibit strangers from consensually engaging in peaceful spontaneous political or religious discussions even if they do not: converse loudly, attract a crowd, block any ingress/egress to the mall, its tenants or their activities, distribute any literature, hold any signs or placards, request signatures for any petition, solicit any contributions, or compromise any fire or other safety precautions," the court scolded. "In other words, the rules prohibit unplanned classic pure free speech between strangers who mutually agree to converse and who cause no disturbance of the peace or otherwise burden, interfere with, or impose additional risk on the operation or enjoyment of the mall."
Katy Dickey, a Westfield spokeswoman, told the Sacramento Bee, "We are disappointed that the court of appeals determined that the rules in question did not satisfy the required legal standard for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. We are reviewing the court's decision and will consider our optionsincluding appeal to the California Supreme Court."
Appeals court affirms right 'to engage in casual conversations'
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A court decision written by a candidate for chief justice of the California Supreme Court has torpedoed rules established by a shopping mall to regulate casual conversations among customers.
"The [mall's] rules treat all applicants for noncommercial expressive activity the same way, but the rules are not content neutral because they prohibit or restrict speech unrelated to the mall's interests while permitting speech that is related to the mall's interest. The rules are content based," said the opinion from Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
And those rules, the judge explained, are presumptively unconstitutional.
Get "Back Fired," by William J. Federer, which shows how the faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!
According to the Pacific Justice Institute, which represented a youth pastor targeted by mall enforcement of its speech rules, the case arose after a Matthew Snatchko was arrested at the Roseville Galleria Mall in 2007 for striking up a casual conversation with other shoppers about faith.
Although Snatchko had obtained the shoppers' permission to broach the subject, a nearby store employee disapproved and called mall security guards, who arrested Snatchko. Criminal charges were later dropped, but attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute filed suit to challenge the mall's tight restrictions on speech.
Pacific Justice said that under the mall's rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics such as religion or politics unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.
The new ruling from the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento struck down the mall rules as unconstitutionally vague and restrictive of free speech. The court also awarded costs on appeal to Snatchko and indicated he would be able to collect damages and attorney's fees. The case now heads back to the trial court for implementation of the appellate court's decision.
"We are very pleased with this landmark ruling by the California Court of Appeals that vindicates the right to engage in casual conversations about faith without fear of being arrested," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "This is a great victory for free speech and common sense."
"The rules are unconstitutional on their face under article I, section 2 of the California Constitution, the California constitutional provision which guarantees the right to freespeech," the court ruling found.
The court noted the seemingly innocuous behavior that prompted the mall to arrest the youth pastor.
"Hoping for opportunities to share his Christian faith, Matthew Snatchko, a youth pastor, often went to a large regional shopping mall – the Galleria in Roseville, owned, operated and managed by Westfield (hereafter the Galleria or the mall). While he was in the common area of the mall one evening, Snatchko approached three young women in their late teens, asked them if they were willing to talk with him, and upon receiving their consent, engaged them in conversation,which included with their permission his sharing with them principles of his faith. He did not raise his voice or otherwise create a scene. He did not distribute any literature. He did not solicit money or other contributions of any kind. He did not ask them to join his church. He did not block mall patrons," thecourt said.
"Nevertheless, a nearby store employee called the mall's security office and requested they investigate Snatchko's actions. A security officer responded and observed what he believed to be nervous behavior by the young women. Snatchko did not observe any expression or conduct by the women indicating they were nervous or that they did not want to continue the conversation. It appeared to Snatchko that the security officer stopped and listened to his conversation with the women."
The court continued, "The security officer approached and asked Snatchko to stop what he was doing or leave the mall. When Snatchko refused, the security officer called for backup. A senior security officer responded and instructed Snatchko to leave. As Snatchko continued to refuse, the security officers forcibly placed Snatchko under citizen's arrest, handcuffed him and escorted him to the security office where they turned him over to Roseville police."
However, the charges later were dismissed and the Placer County district attorney stipulated that Snatchko was factually innocent of the charges.
Snatchko then filed the court action to challenge the speech rules.
"Westfield's rules burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further its legitimate safety and convenience interests. The rules prohibit strangers from consensually engaging in peaceful spontaneous political or religious discussions even if they do not: converse loudly, attract a crowd, block any ingress/egress to the mall, its tenants or their activities, distribute any literature, hold any signs or placards, request signatures for any petition, solicit any contributions, or compromise any fire or other safety precautions," the court scolded. "In other words, the rules prohibit unplanned classic pure free speech between strangers who mutually agree to converse and who cause no disturbance of the peace or otherwise burden, interfere with, or impose additional risk on the operation or enjoyment of the mall."
Katy Dickey, a Westfield spokeswoman, told the Sacramento Bee, "We are disappointed that the court of appeals determined that the rules in question did not satisfy the required legal standard for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. We are reviewing the court's decision and will consider our optionsincluding appeal to the California Supreme Court."
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Obama Is Demagogue in Chief on Immigration Issue
By: David Limbaugh
As the granddaddy of political demagoguery, President Obama might have outdone himself with his recent admonition to political opponents not to "demagogue" the immigration issue.
A "demagogue" is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."
"Ah," you say, "Obama is onto something here. Those who oppose his open-border policy are appealing to prejudice against immigrants instead of to rational argument." Wrong.
Rather, those who support defending our borders believe in the rule of law and in law enforcement. The people of the United States — and Arizona in particular — have a rational interest in protecting their borders and in wanting to prevent illegal immigration.
Though we've had immigration laws on the books for years, are Obama's Democrats saying they are irrationally based — that anyone who wants to enforce these laws is prejudiced? That anyone throughout our history who favored controlling immigration was harboring racial prejudice?
It is Obama and many of his supporters who fall into the demagogue category by appealing to prejudices and fears in lieu of rational argument.
Even in his invocation of the term "demagogue" to describe this issue, Obama himself is demagoguing. He must, because he has no reasonable arguments to justify his lawless policy.
Obama is implying — and has been implying for months — that the people of Arizona didn't pass an enforcement law to ensure their own safety or to facilitate legitimate ends of law enforcement authorities, but to discriminate against legal aliens.
Indeed, the thrust of the administration's ill-conceived lawsuit against the state of Arizona and its people is that legal aliens would be targeted by the reach of the new law.
Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know better, as Arizona officials testified under oath and averred otherwise in court filings, but they choose to persist in this destructive lie anyway because rational arguments fail them.
The law will not be applied to legal aliens, but it doesn't target illegal aliens, either. It merely allows authorities to demand documentation from those who are already detained because of a reasonable suspicion they broke a law.
If they don't put themselves in a position of being under such suspicion, the immigration law is powerless against them.
Being "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices," Obama wants to inflame Hispanics into believing the Arizona people and Republicans nationwide are motivated by a prejudice against Mexicans.
Liberals have been hyping this malicious canard for years, suggesting that Republicans and conservatives are nativists and racists.
This is part of a pattern for Obama: to hold himself out as transcending race while exploiting the issue worse than anyone has in the past 50 years.
Whether in his self-indulgent autobiographies or his stump speeches, Obama consistently reveals his deep-seated racial baggage, and he simply will not desist from projecting that baggage onto his political opponents, who oppose him because of his policies. Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky would heartily approve.
In his "bitter clingers" speech, Obama suggested that small-town Americans cling to not only their "guns or religion" — as if that were unhealthy — but also their "antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"Antipathy to people who aren't like them"? Notice how he unctuously conflates racial prejudice with anti-trade and anti-immigration ideas. He's talking about political conservatives here — Middle America — and implying they're racists.
No mistake about it. Apparently, he can view things only through race-tinted spectacles and insists on forcing those glasses on the rest of us as well.
"High-minded" liberal elites were beside themselves proclaiming that Obama, because of his race, was in a special position to usher in an era of racial harmony.
Well, if we accept the premise that his race should matter on race relations, then it's also fair to say that he has a special responsibility not to exploit the race issue and that he should take extraordinary care not to inflame the already sensitive passions that exist.
It can't reasonably be argued that it's healthy for race relations for Obama to gallivant about suggesting ordinary Americans are routinely prejudiced, whether against blacks, Hispanics, or other "minorities."
Such reckless speech does more to exacerbate racial tensions than his election could ever do to heal them.
Falsely accusing people of racism is essentially the same thing as racism. It's time for Obama and many other liberals to rise above their own categorical prejudice against conservatives and quit slandering them as racists and nativists. Then we can proceed to have a rational discussion on the issue of immigration.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," will come out in August. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website.
© Creators Syndicate Inc.
As the granddaddy of political demagoguery, President Obama might have outdone himself with his recent admonition to political opponents not to "demagogue" the immigration issue.
A "demagogue" is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."
"Ah," you say, "Obama is onto something here. Those who oppose his open-border policy are appealing to prejudice against immigrants instead of to rational argument." Wrong.
Rather, those who support defending our borders believe in the rule of law and in law enforcement. The people of the United States — and Arizona in particular — have a rational interest in protecting their borders and in wanting to prevent illegal immigration.
Though we've had immigration laws on the books for years, are Obama's Democrats saying they are irrationally based — that anyone who wants to enforce these laws is prejudiced? That anyone throughout our history who favored controlling immigration was harboring racial prejudice?
It is Obama and many of his supporters who fall into the demagogue category by appealing to prejudices and fears in lieu of rational argument.
Even in his invocation of the term "demagogue" to describe this issue, Obama himself is demagoguing. He must, because he has no reasonable arguments to justify his lawless policy.
Obama is implying — and has been implying for months — that the people of Arizona didn't pass an enforcement law to ensure their own safety or to facilitate legitimate ends of law enforcement authorities, but to discriminate against legal aliens.
Indeed, the thrust of the administration's ill-conceived lawsuit against the state of Arizona and its people is that legal aliens would be targeted by the reach of the new law.
Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know better, as Arizona officials testified under oath and averred otherwise in court filings, but they choose to persist in this destructive lie anyway because rational arguments fail them.
The law will not be applied to legal aliens, but it doesn't target illegal aliens, either. It merely allows authorities to demand documentation from those who are already detained because of a reasonable suspicion they broke a law.
If they don't put themselves in a position of being under such suspicion, the immigration law is powerless against them.
Being "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices," Obama wants to inflame Hispanics into believing the Arizona people and Republicans nationwide are motivated by a prejudice against Mexicans.
Liberals have been hyping this malicious canard for years, suggesting that Republicans and conservatives are nativists and racists.
This is part of a pattern for Obama: to hold himself out as transcending race while exploiting the issue worse than anyone has in the past 50 years.
Whether in his self-indulgent autobiographies or his stump speeches, Obama consistently reveals his deep-seated racial baggage, and he simply will not desist from projecting that baggage onto his political opponents, who oppose him because of his policies. Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky would heartily approve.
In his "bitter clingers" speech, Obama suggested that small-town Americans cling to not only their "guns or religion" — as if that were unhealthy — but also their "antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"Antipathy to people who aren't like them"? Notice how he unctuously conflates racial prejudice with anti-trade and anti-immigration ideas. He's talking about political conservatives here — Middle America — and implying they're racists.
No mistake about it. Apparently, he can view things only through race-tinted spectacles and insists on forcing those glasses on the rest of us as well.
"High-minded" liberal elites were beside themselves proclaiming that Obama, because of his race, was in a special position to usher in an era of racial harmony.
Well, if we accept the premise that his race should matter on race relations, then it's also fair to say that he has a special responsibility not to exploit the race issue and that he should take extraordinary care not to inflame the already sensitive passions that exist.
It can't reasonably be argued that it's healthy for race relations for Obama to gallivant about suggesting ordinary Americans are routinely prejudiced, whether against blacks, Hispanics, or other "minorities."
Such reckless speech does more to exacerbate racial tensions than his election could ever do to heal them.
Falsely accusing people of racism is essentially the same thing as racism. It's time for Obama and many other liberals to rise above their own categorical prejudice against conservatives and quit slandering them as racists and nativists. Then we can proceed to have a rational discussion on the issue of immigration.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," will come out in August. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website.
© Creators Syndicate Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)