Democrats Spin The Constitution

The latest attack on John McCain by the Democratic spin wizards is really an attack on the US Constitution.

In their desperation to try and remove McCain from the race, they are now claiming because he was born on a military base outside the US, he is disqualified from running for President of the United States. Their basis is that the Constitution requires a person to be a “natural-born citizen” to be eligible to be President of the United States.

Well his parents were US citizens, therefore regardless of where he was born he is a natural born citizen. A “un” natural born citizen is a person not born a US citizen by not having at least one parent who was a US Citizen (Natural or Naturalized). The key is Naturalization, the process one goes through to become a US Citizen when they are born a citizen of another country. In addition to that he was born on a US Military base, to a Father who was stationed there by our government.

The fact that they are bringing this up is quite disturbing on many levels. Their interpretation of our Constitution, the dishonor they place upon John and his fathers military service, the audacity they show by giving Terrorist (non citizens) elevated status of importance over our own citizens when it comes to Constitutional rights and their blatent disregard for the immigration issues we face and dare make John McCain look like an immigrant to further their cause.

WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Ms. Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.

Mr. McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Mr. Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

Savage Lawsuit Going After CAIR As A Terrorist Entity

Wow, Michael Savage is going all out against CAIR. His suit has been amended to include charges that CAIR is a terrorist agency and not a Civil Rights Group.

Unlike our government who was afraid to charge CAIR in the Homeland Foundation trial in Texas, Savage is not afraid.

WASHINGTON – It’s no longer just a charge of copyright violation in the case of Michael Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Now the radio talk star is going for the legal jugular in his battle with the group that bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization.

The San Francisco-based talker has amended his lawsuit against CAIR for misusing audio clips of his show as part of a boycott campaign against his three-hour daily program to include charges the group “has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system.”

The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a “political vehicle of international terrorism” and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.

The federal government recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.

And as WND has reported, CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations.

“Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States,” said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.

Savage and celebrity civil rights attorney Daniel Horowitz are attempting to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to make the case that “CAIR and its co-conspirators have aided, abetted and materially sponsored al-Qaida and international terrorism.”

CAIR launched a campaign against “The Savage Nation,” as the program is called, using extended audio clips of the show to make the case that advertisers who supported the talker were actually endorsing “hate speech” against Muslims.

Savage turned the tables on the activist group by initially suing for copyright violation of the show’s material. This week the suit was expanded with some of the strongest allegations ever made against CAIR publicly.

Among the charges is that CAIR is “part of a deliberately complex and deliberately confusing array of related organizations” and that its “organizational structure is part of a scheme to hide the illegal activities of the group, funding, the transfer of funds and to complicate investigation of the group.”

Other highlights of the suit:

  • “CAIR is not a civil rights organization and it never has been. … CAIR was and is a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda on behalf of foreign interests.”
  • “The copyright infringement was done to raise funds for CAIR so that it could perpetuate and continue to perform its role in the RICO conspiracy set forth in Count Two and to disseminate propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation.”
  • “CAIR would have to register as a foreign agent if their activities were not hidden under the false claim that they are a civil rights organization that enjoys tax-exempt status.”
  • “CAIR was tied to terror from the day it was formed. The group was incorporated on or about 1994 by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. Both men were officers of a terror organization known as the ‘Islamic Association of Palestine.'”
  • “CAIR’s parent group, IAP, was founded in or about 1982 by Musa Abu Marzook. Marzook was IAP’s ideological leader and controlling director from the date of its founding until shortly after his deportation from the United States in 1997. At all time relevant, Marzook was an operative of, and/or affiliated with, the ‘Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah,’ or ‘Hamas.’ Hamas is an international terrorist organization.”
  • In 1998, “CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as ‘the sworn enemy,’ asserting that this depiction [was] ‘offensive to Muslims.'”
  • In 1998, “CAIR denied bin Laden’s responsibility for the two al-Qaida bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR’s leader Ibrahim Hooper claimed the bombings resulted from ‘misunderstandings on both sides.'”
  • “On October 5, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, CAIR’s New York office sent a letter to The New York Times arguing that the paper had misidentified three of the hijackers and suggesting that the attacks may have been committed by people who were impersonating Arab Muslims.”
  • “CAIR further exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website.” The Holy Land Foundation, the suit charges, is “a terror organization.”
  • “CAIR receives significant international funding. For example, in 1999 the Islamic Development Bank gave a $250,000 grant to CAIR to purchase land for a national headquarters. In 2002, the World Association for Muslim Youth, a Saudi government-funded organization, financed distributing books on Islam free of charge and an advertising campaign in American publications. This included a quarter page in USA Today each Friday, for a year, estimated to cost $1.04 million. In 2003, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $500,000 to distribute the Koran and other books about Islam in the United States. In 2005, CAIR’s Washington branch received a donation of $1,366,466 from a Saudi Arabian named Adnan Bogary. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and UAE minister of finance and industry, financed the building of a property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for the organization. This gift is thought to generate income of approximately $3 million a year.”
  • “The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Wahabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual ‘shock troops’ of Islamic terrorism.”
  • “The Council on American-Islamic Relations is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda.”
  • “CAIR has links to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson has stated before Congress that CAIR is a front for Hamas.”

Savage’s case also cites another ongoing suit against CAIR filed by the estate of John P. O’Neill, the former head of security for the World Trade Center. It alleges a RICO conspiracy involving CAIR led to the 9/11 attack.

“Throughout this period,” the Savage suit alleges, “CAIR conspired to support terrorism and to obfuscate the roles of the various participants and conspirators in Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or al-Qaida and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, which conspiracy culminated in the 9/11 attack.”

It continues: “The pattern of racketeering activity conducted by CAIR is separate from the existence of Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or the al-Qaida, and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, but was a necessary component of the 9/11 attack. The RICO enterprise conducts terrorism all over the world; the racketeering activity conducted by CAIR funds that activity, which activity culminated in the 9/11 attack.”

CAIR has refused to comment on Savage’s suit to date. But it has claimed a host of companies have stopped advertising on Savage’s show as a result of its boycott campaign.

However, an investigation by WND shows some of those boycott victories are questionable. In one announcement claiming Universal Orlando Resorts “drops ‘Savage Nation’ ads,” CAIR stated: “Advertisers that have already stopped airing, or refuse to air commercials on ‘Savage Nation’ include AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T.”

But AutoZone told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows – of all parts of the spectrum – years before the CAIR effort.

CAIR officials declined to respond to WND queries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that say they have not participated in the boycott.

Officials of Talk Radio Network, Savage’s syndicator, confirmed to WND that companies including AutoZone and JCPenney never advertise on such programs.

“We do not sponsor syndicated radio talk shows,” AutoZone spokesman Ray Pohlman told WND. “We have customers of all shapes and sizes and political persuasions. For us to sponsor [any radio talk shows] wouldn’t make any sense.”

But that policy is years old, and wasn’t changed at all by CAIR’s effort, he said.

“What I will tell you is the CAIR organization did, in fact, contact the marketing department [of AutoZone.] We responded with our full advertising policy which clearly states that we do not advertise on radio talk shows,” he told WND.

The announcement about Universal was made by the Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition, of which CAIR is a prominent member.

It said Universal Orlando Resorts “has joined a growing list of advertisers that have stopped advertising or refuse to place their ads on Michael Savage’s ‘Savage Nation’ Radio program.”

The campaign also has triggered a lawsuit by Savage against CAIR over its alleged misappropriation of Savage’s radio broadcast material. In the lawsuit, Savage depicts CAIR as a “vehicle of international terrorism.”

CAIR says it is challenging Savage’s “hate speech,” and referenced Savage comments such as:

“I’m not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I’m not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I’m not getting’ on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don’t like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don’t wanna hear any more about Islam. I don’t wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I’m sick of you.”

The Savage suit says comments like that are taken out of context.

Another major company CAIR claims has joined the boycott of Michael Savage is JCPenney. But as with AutoZone, JCPenney officials told WND readers they were not making any special provision in their advertising policy that would make them part of a protest campaign, but officials did not respond directly to WND inquiries.

“JCPenney did not ‘pull’ advertising from the show. JCPenney has had a long standing policy about not advertising on any show that can be construed as controversial. An error in upholding this policy was made by a few local stations, and it has now been clarified,” the company told a WND reader.

“Wal-Mart does not sponsor or advertise on the Michael Savage show. We have asked radio networks to ensure that Wal-Mart ads do not run in programming that we deem controversial and are sending out content guidelines reminders to radio networks and stations,” said that company.

Savage’s lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by CAIR, which the lawsuit says seeks to do “material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients.”

Filed in U.S. District Court in California, the suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters “who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support” as well as “actual damages according to proof.”

A spokesman for Savage indicated the top-rated talk show host would have no further comment, saying the text of the lawsuit itself would answer questions.

The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraising efforts.

Those comments from Savage’s show include his criticisms of Islam and Muslims. The lawsuit maintains such comments, taken in context, are Savage’s verbal expression of the feelings of many Americans.

“The audience of ‘The Savage Nation’ expects this type of from-the-heart outrage and when it is directed at a murderer such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk, the piece is far more understandable and far more American mainstream. While the strength of the outrage is remarkable and a hallmark of ‘The Savage Nation,’ the sentiment is shared by a huge number of Americans,” the lawsuit says.

I´m stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin´ on …

Jihad recruitment in state and federal prisons is a problem, a problem that our liberal media hides away. The recent Dix Six case was hit with this, because those that are in prison are accused of spreading Jihad propoganda… This goes one step further in that the primary actor was running outside operations from within his cell…

Well ACT has more on this problem…

Here’s a follow up story on the conviction of the Folsom prison Jihadis we posted from the New Zealand Herald, courtesy of ACT board of adviser member, Bob Spencer at Jihad Watch. This news story is indicative of the rampant growth of radical Islamic converts in both state and federal prisons in major states like California and New York. Parolees and former convicted felons, jail house converts to Islam are easy recruits for Jaamat ul Fuqra that runs a network of 45 paramilitary training camps across the US and Canada. Congress ought to be investigating why taxpayer funds are being used to convert and train jihadis while doing time in the ‘big house’.

Jihad Watch, December 25, 2007

“According to a 2005 federal indictment, [Kevin Lamar] James directed the plotters from his cell.”

More on this story, and the consequences of prison dawa in southern California. “Turning to US jails to recruit for the jihad,” by Peter Huck for the New Zealand Herald:

It all started with a mobile phone, dropped at a petrol station robbery in Torrance, California, in July 2005.

“Through the phone we came up with a name, a residence and the location of the suspects,” says Torrance police officer Dave Crespin.

“We arrested the suspects and conducted a search warrant on an apartment in South Los Angeles.”

There had been a string of robberies in the area, mostly with the same MO; a getaway driver and another with a shotgun. But once on the premises detectives realised this was far bigger than a robbery and contacted the FBI.

The apartment, rented by suspects Levar Hanley Washington, a prison parolee, and Gregory Patterson, who had no criminal record, contained a trove of incriminating material that allegedly suggested the hapless robbers aspired to become terrorists.

Among material used to charge the men and two accomplices was a handwritten document called “Blueprint 2005″, which cited eight tasks, such as obtaining silencers for pistols and bombs that can be activated from a distance. Another document, “Modes of Attack”, listed local targets.

The investigation led to California’s New Folsom Prison and the cell of Kevin Lamar James, where investigators found the draft of a sinister press release.

Titled “Notoriety Moves”, it outlined violent jihad in Southern California, and was allegedly due to be disseminated after the attacks began.

“This incident is the first in a series of incidents to come in a plight to defend and propagate traditional Islam in its purity,” it read. “Sincere Muslims” were advised to avoid targets, including Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of an Israeli state.

Possible targets included a military recruitment office and National Guard facilities, synagogues, the Israeli consulate, the El Al desk at Los Angeles International Airport, and a mysterious “Campsite of Zion”.

“Their plans were to enter either a recruiting facility or a synagogue and shoot as many people as possible before fleeing,” says US attorney Gregory Staples, who helped to prosecute the case.

Last week James, 30, and Washington, 29, pleaded guilty in a Californian court to conspiring “to wage war against the Government of the United States through terrorism”.

The plot allegedly started with the creation of JIS.

In 103 pages of handwritten text, some of it in Arabic, James set out the JIS protocols for followers. They are advised to demonstrate “obedience to established authority” and to be “esoteric or clandestine” in their activities. They also had a duty to attack infidels, including Israel and the US.

Washington, serving time in Folsom for assault and robbery, was recruited to JIS by James, his cellmate, in 2004.

Patterson was also a convert. According to a 2005 federal indictment, James directed the plotters from his cell. Their plans began to heat up in 2004 after Washington was paroled.

He subsequently recruited Patterson, with whom he attended a LA mosque, and Samana, making them swear allegiance to JIS. Authorities say Washington planned to finance the plot by robbing gas stations. Ten were hit. Samana allegedly researched the Modes of Attack targets.

“At the time of their arrest, it appeared they were on the verge of staging an attack here in Los Angeles,” said Thomas O’Brien, the US Attorney in Los Angeles. “An untold number of lives may have been saved when this terrorist cell was dismantled.”

Posted by Marisol at December 25, 2007 12:05 AM

Illegal Immigrants Exodus

Amazing, who would have thought, you pass some laws that will keep illegal immigrants from getting jobs and bam, they leave… I just love the liberal and illegal views… They are being terrorized and oppressed because of these laws. Wake up, they are here ILLEGALLY, thus the term illegal aliens. They are breaking the law. Get a green card and you are more than welcome in my country, until then get out.

PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) — Illegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated with a flagging economy and tough new legislation cracking down on their employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.

Border Patrol officers in Phoenix, Arizona, check a bus depot for illegal immigrants in June 2006.

var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger(‘cnnImgChngr’,’/2007/US/12/22/immigrants.leave.ap/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html’,1,1); //CNN.imageChanger.load(‘cnnImgChngr’,’imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html’);

For months, immigrants have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the state’s new employer-sanctions law, which takes effect January 1. The voter-approved legislation is an attempt to lessen the economic incentive for illegal immigrants in Arizona, the busiest crossing point along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And by all appearances, it’s starting to work.

“People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors — they’re moving back to Mexico,” said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. “They don’t want to live in fear, in terror.”

Martin Herrera, a 40-year-old illegal immigrant and masonry worker who lives in Camp Verde, 70 miles north of Phoenix, said he is planning to return to Mexico as soon as he ties up loose ends after living here for four years.

“I don’t want to live here because of the new law and the oppressive environment,” he said. “I’ll be better in my country.”

He called the employer-sanctions law “absurd.”

“Everybody here, legally or illegally, we are part of a motor that makes this country run,” Herrera said. “Once we leave, the motor is going to start to slow down.”

There’s no way to know how many illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona, especially now with many returning home for normal holiday visits. But economists, immigration lawyers and people who work in the immigrant community agree it’s happening.

State Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, the author of the employer sanctions law, said his intent was to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona.

“I’m hoping they will self-deport,” Pearce said. “They broke the law. They’re criminals.”

Under the employer sanctions law, businesses found to have knowingly hired illegal workers will be subject to sanctions from probation to a 10-day suspension of their business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.

Nancy-Jo Merritt, an immigration lawyer who primarily represents employers, said her clients already have started to fire workers who can’t prove they are in the country legally.

“Workers are being fired, of course,” she said. “Nobody wants to find out later on that they’ve got somebody working for them who’s not here legally.”

When immigrants don’t have jobs, they don’t stick around, said Dawn McLaren, a research economist at Arizona State University who specializes in illegal immigration.

She said the flagging economy, particularly in the construction industry, also is contributing to an immigrant exodus.

“As the jobs dwindle and the environment becomes more unpleasant in more ways than one, you then decide what to do, and perhaps leaving looks like a good idea,” she said. “And certainly that creates a problem, because as people leave, they take the jobs they created with them.”

Pearce disagreed that the Arizona economy will suffer after illegal immigrants leave, saying there will be less crime, lower taxes, less congestion, smaller classroom sizes and shorter lines in emergency rooms.

“We have a free market. It’ll adjust,” he said. “Americans will be much better off.”

He said he’s not surprised illegal immigrants are leaving the state and predicts that more will go once the employer-sanctions law takes effect next month.

“It’s attrition by enforcement,” he said. “As you make this an unfriendly state for lawbreakers, I’m hoping they will pick up and leave.”

Obama Camp Confused On Race Issue

The Obama camp is getting ready to throw the race card into the 2008 Presidential Elections… The claim stems from Clinton’s assertation that Obama might not be the best candidate because he admits to having had used drugs and his lenient political outlook on drug use

How the hell is this a race issue, is Obama asserting that drug use is exclusive to blacks…

I remember in Bill’s election the issue of his drug use came up, I did not inhale, remember that…

Or how about Bush’s election with the issue Cocaine and Alcoholism…

As for his lenient political stance on conviction of drug dealers, again how is that an issue of race…

It appears the Obama camp cannot get the black vote, even with Oprah, so they need to resort to false attacks against him to try and garnish those votes.

This is far from a racial attack on Obama, more of a holier than thou moral attack…

It has unfolded mostly under the radar. But an important development in the 2008 Democratic battle may be the building backlash among African Americans over comments from associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could be construed as jabs at Sen. Barack Obama‘s race.

These officials, including Clinton aides and prominent surrogates, have raised questions or dropped references about Obama’s position on sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder cocaine offenses; on his handgun control record; and on his admitted use of drugs as a youth. The context was always Obama’s “electability.” But the Illinois senator’s campaign advisers said some African American leaders detect a pattern, and they believe it could erode Clinton’s strong base of black support.Here’s a sample of how the issue is playing out:From the “Tom Joyner Morning Show,” Dec. 14:

Tom Joyner: “Yeah, man, they are coming after you now. So the story about the Clinton campaign putting out this statement not to vote for Barack Obama because he used drugs, and then yesterday I understand that she apologized and the campaign worker quit.”

Obama: “Well, I think everybody knows, because I wrote about it in a book 10 years ago. . . . and part of the reason I wrote about it and I talk about it in schools is because I want young people out there to know that if they make the same kinds of mistakes that I made that they can get over it and that they can move on. . . .”

From columnist Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe, Dec. 15:

“That leaves open as to how far the Clinton campaign, whose poll leads have evaporated in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, will go to stereotype Obama as not only naive, but cast him in a sinister light in a nation where black drug use and criminality is exaggerated in the media . . . .”

” ‘I don’t think these strategies are very subtle,’ Obama said. ‘I won’t speak to the racial element of it because I think, you know, if I were a white candidate, obviously, somebody suggesting falsely they were a drug dealer, it’s never good.’ But in sum, Obama, who has written about his teenage drug use in his memoirs, said, ‘There’s been a series of these kinds of tactics that at some point we’ve just got to send a clear signal this is not what we’re about.’ ”

From Black Star News of New York, Dec. 19:

“So the Clinton campaign decided to use the race card. A senior campaign official, Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire, warned voters that Obama might not be the suitable candidate because were he to win the Democratic nomination, those nasty Republicans could bring up the fact that Obama has admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in his youth. Might the Republicans not even ask whether Obama had also been a drug dealer? This was clearly playing to the deep seated stereotype that some white people harbor — of Blacks as natural born criminals and drug dealers.”

Huckabee’s Message Simple for Christmas

Practically every candidate running for president is up with some sort of Christmas commercial ranging from the serious (Sen. John McCain‘s retelling of Christmas in a POW camp) to the humorous (Rudy Giuliani’s appearance with Santa.)

The Fix chose three of the ads — Giuliani’s, as well as the commercial by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in which she is wrapping a variety of presents corresponding to the issues of her campaign and former governor Mike Huckabee’s “reason for the season” spot — and asked a variety of unaffiliated political operatives for their takes.

Here’s what they had to say:

The favorite, by far, of our informal panel was Huckabee’s ad. “Huckabee’s ad is the most effective because it was first, it is simple, and, in case there was any doubt, it reminds viewers of his singular strength — that he’s a Christian,” said Democratic consultant Stephanie Cutter. “He is just so genuine that it really does give you a good feeling,” said Democratic pollster John Anzalone, a sentiment echoed by Republican pollster Glen Bolger: “Huckabee’s is the best, because it is not political and shows a sense of genuineness about the guy.”

Reviews were more mixed for the ads by Giuliani and Clinton.

Of Giuliani’s “Santa” commercial, Democratic pollster Dave Beattie said: “It attempts to use humor to makes promises and criticize the process, but unlike Huckabee’s and even Hillary’s ad, it is more about the process of politics rather than political belief and motivation.” Jennifer Burton, a Democratic media consultant, was more complimentary — arguing that Giuliani’s ad “succeeds in hitting his message points and using humor to make Rudy two-dimensional.”

Not surprisingly the Clinton ad, like everything in her campaign, provoked strong feelings on both sides. “Hillary’s ad is a clever treatment,” said Republican media consultant Erik Potholm. “The spot does a good job of bringing the viewer in — as if they are watching the latest ads for Macy’s last-minute, holiday sale — while reminding voters of her agenda.” Beattie was far less sanguine about the ad’s impact. “It treats the holidays as a prop, which probably does little to move voters and does little to keep expanding her image as a person rather than a politician.”


Remember this name: Jay W. Ragley. The new executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, Ragley has long been the boy wonder — he’s 27 — of Palmetto State GOP politics. He first came on The Fix’s radar as political director for the party in the 2006 cycle before jumping over to serve as the South Carolina director for the National Federation of Independent Business.

In Ragley’s new post, he will get plenty of national attention early next year when Republican presidential candidates descend on the Palmetto State for its Jan. 19 primary.

11 days: It’s almost here. The Iowa caucuses loom as large as ever on the political landscape despite the compression of the nominating calendar.

37 days: Florida hosts its presidential primary. Will it be the last meaningful contest of the primary season?

US Rendition Laws

I wonder how long it will take the liberals to blame this one on Bush and claim that we are loosing more Constitutional Rights…

As is pointed out the current law which dates back quite a ways, deals with bounty hundting, during a time when extradition was probably not a feasibility.

The media has already clung to the term kidnap, which in this case is really apprehension of a suspected criminal. This is not news, it is bringing to light something overlooked…

As for how this is considered legal, the US Supreme court did not rule that it was legal, they ruled that US courts do not have the power to determine if said rendition is illegal as the rendition occured outside of their juristiction. This is not the same as saying it is legal, they were saying the country where the rendition occured retains juristiction and the case must be made there.

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

The US government’s view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”

Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.

Jones replied: “That is United States law.”

He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.

Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time — as there currently is between the United States and Britain — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.

In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.

An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.

A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a “sinister trap” and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain.

Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term “extraordinary rendition” was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.

There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said: “The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American law.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: “This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation.”

The US Justice Department declined to comment.

Democrats Fighting Over FISA, Don’t Forget To Cross Your T’s and Dodd Your I’s

Dodd is trying to score points with the liberal voters in his resistance to Senate Intelligence Committee support of the NSA’s “warrantless wiretapping program”. Oddly enough SIC has support from both Democratats and Republicans…

The big controvery appears to be immunity for the phone companies, ultimately releasing them from being sued for providing law enforcement agencies access to their systems. Well let’s see if they do not cooperate with law enforcement agencies , then they will be in trouble for that as well.

In all reality, it is the law enforcement agencies that should be held accountable for proper implimentation of the program not the phone companies.

Is this a civil rights issue? Illegal search and siezure protects a person from improper searching of their person and property, should it extend to the use of public utilities? Once making a phone call you are using the phone companies property, you are using a regulated public utility that is governed by FCC in the US… I dare say to the liberals, once you do this, you are no longer dealing with your person or persoanl property.

Alas, the liberals think anything that will get them a vote is a civil rights issue… They hold a notion that anything that will get them a vote regardless of our nations’ security is worth fighting for. Let’s not confront the enemy, lets help them –  should be the liberal motto…

After an eight-hour mock filibuster by presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pulled a controversial bill that would have given phone companies immunity from lawsuits brought by people who believed their civil rights were abrogated when, after 9/11, the companies gave the government access to their data without requiring a warrant.

Dodd and the other Democratic senators running for president opposed the immunity provision in the bill, which also extends authorization for the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The delay could leave Reid and the Democrats open to attacks that the Democrats are keeping the government from spying on terrorists.

Democrats in the House opposed the immunity provision, but it had gained bipartisan support in the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The information the companies provided to the government since the terror attacks is the subject of several ongoing lawsuits.

Reid agreed with Dodd on the issue of immunity but brought the bill to the Senate floor to move it along in the legislative process. The Protect America Act temporarily modified the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the NSA to conduct its warrantless domestic wiretapping program.

Reid said pulling the bill would allow senators to give it a more thorough examination later on. He has called on the White House to provide its classified legal reasoning for the program.

“The Senate is committed to improving our nation’s intelligence laws to fight terrorism while protecting Americans’ civil liberties,” Reid said.

“We need to take the time necessary to debate a bill that does just that, rather than rushing one through the legislative process. While we had hoped to complete the FISA bill this week, it is clear that is not possible,” he said.

Dodd took a break from the campaign trail to spend more than eight hours today on the Senate floor, lobbying against the bill that would update the Protect America Act, which Congress passed in August.

“It covers up an immense alleged violation of civil liberties,” Dodd said, assailing the telecom immunity provision on the Senate floor.

“This is not some small matter, not a one-time event, but one that went on for five years here in a rather elaborate and extensive way on which I’ll go into detail. Immunity is wrong because of what it represents.

“This is a weakening of the rule of law that concentrates power in the hands of the executive,” he said.

Dodd had offered an amendment to strip the immunity clause from the bill the Senate is considering.

If his amendment had been rejected, as it was likely to be since a number of key Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have already approved the immunity clause, Dodd threatened to filibuster on the Senate floor.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he was disappointed by the delay.

“I’m disappointed legislation to modernize and improve FISA will now have to wait until January. As I’ve said many times, it is one of the most important bills before Congress, and one that should not be rushed in the final hours before the Protect America Act expires.”