State employees busted for exposing 1,300 illegals List given to authorities lands whistleblowers in deep water

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Utah's Capitol

Two Utah state employees are facing termination and possible criminal charges for allegedly exposing the names of over a thousand state residents believed to be illegal immigrants.

Earlier this month, someone calling themselves the "Concerned Citizens of the United States" anonymously sent to Utah media outlets and law enforcement officials a 29-page list containing the names and personal details of 1,300 alleged illegal aliens living in the state. The list included a demand that those on it be "immediately deported."

But officials have tracked the identifying information back to state Department of Workforce Services computers, and now, instead of the illegal immigrants answering to the authorities, two state employees charged with distributing the list face a criminal investigation.

State officials have confirmed that DWS employees breached a database to gather the personal information publicized on the list – including addresses, birth dates, phone numbers, due dates of several pregnant women and even Social Security numbers of the alleged illegal aliens' children.

Utah's Deseret News reports the workers – identified by various news sources as 15-year DWS employee Teresa Bassett and temporary worker Leah Carson – could be facing a $50,000 fine and up to a year in jail for disclosing private health information, with a possible increase to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if the conduct involves intent to sell or transfer the information for personal gain or malicious harm.

Utah DWS Director Kristen Cox told Salt Lake City's KSTU-TV the investigation and available evidence has been turned over to the state's attorney general.

"As to motive," Cox told the station, "I think this indicates some overall frustration with immigration reform and the frustration a lot of people are feeling with the lack of action at the federal level. I think there was some strong political views that some of these people held."



Cox admitted that some have reacted to the story by calling the former employees "patriots" or "heroes" but insists they're mistaken, arguing that the DWS provides no non-emergency benefits to illegal immigrants.

"This isn't just about the breach of illegal immigrants and this idea that they should be exposed," Cox told the station. "This is about making sure that everyone's data is secure that does business at our department."

Utah's DWS drafted an apology letter written in Spanish and English to be sent to those on the list, Deseret News reports. The letter reassures those named that the federal government prohibits the department from sharing information about alleged undocumented immigrants with immigration enforcement agencies or law enforcement.

At least one state lawmaker, however, would like to see state employees – such as those charged in what has been called Utah's "List-Gate" – cooperate with federal immigration authorities in identifying illegal immigrants.

"The best resource to solve this problem is the employees of the state," Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, told Deseret News. "They interface with all the people on food stamps, on Medicaid" and other government assistance programs.

"I don't think [illegal immigrants] ought to be on our welfare rolls," Stowell added. "I think they ought to go back. But we've got to find a way to identify them."

Utah's DWS has established a Q&A page explaining their policies and legal limits in dealing with illegal immigrants.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told Salt Lake City's KTVX-TV that even though the DWS has fingered Carson and Bassett as the "List-Gate" culprits, his office is starting their criminal investigation from scratch, not ruling out the possibility that there may have been others involved.

Obamacare reversal? House 75% of the way there - We must pull it out by the roots this Time

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



One of the biggest targets should the GOP regain control of either the U.S. House or Senate in November's elections, according to many polls, will be Obamacare, the president's plan that effectively nationalized the decision-making process for health-care issues.

But a little-reported move to begin demolition of the health-care system takeover already is pending in the House and has gained about three-quarters of the support it needs to repeal the law that demands citizens buy insurance or pay financial penalties.

As of last night, the discharge petition sponsored by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, had collected 162 signatures of the 218 it would need to advance – even in the face of continued opposition from Obamacare promoter House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Under the provisions of the discharge procedures in the House, such a move is required to have the support of 218 members, a majority, of the 435-member chamber before moving forward.

But since it requires a majority, it is virtually assured of approval once it reaches the point of being advanced.

Share your thoughts about the Obamacare nationalization of health-care decision-making.

The newest names, all from just the last few days:

1. Ed Whitfield, Kentucky
2. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina
3. Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
4. Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
5. Doc Hastings, Washington
6. Don Young, Alaska
7. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
8. Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio
9. Mike Rogers, Michigan
10. Joe Barton, Texas
11. Adam H. Putnam, Florida
12. Dave Camp, Michigan

King has told WND the entire GOP leadership team in the House is on board, as well as the full delegations from California and Texas. He's working on obtaining the last few GOP signatures before turning his attention to the Democrats.



All of the GOP representatives and 34 Democrats opposed Obamacare when it was passed on a narrow 219-212 vote earlier this year. King said 212 representatives, at least, should be in favor of overturning it, since they opposed it before.

Then it will be up to the four, five or six Democrat votes that would be needed to turn from endorsement to rejection for it to advance.

"This is starting to come together," King told WND just days ago. "All the Republicans [earlier] voted no. We should all be for repeal."

He said he's counting on the 34 Democrats who voted no to "demonstrate the courage of their convictions" by supporting a repeal plan.

Many will be running for re-election, King noted, in districts where the majority of voters want the law repealed. And there are Democrats who voted for Obamacare who face election challenges in a field of voters irritated by the law's new taxes and intrusions into their lives.

King told WND that if the discharge petition is successful, it will be a "resounding message" to Pelosi, who said Congress would have to vote for the health-care takeover before people could know what was in it.

King's plan is to "pull out by the roots" the legislation that, among other things, will require citizens to provide their "body-mass index" rating to the government and purchase "government-approved" health insurance whether they want it or not.

Summer sizzle: Obamacare could be repealed before election

The proposal states: "Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Steve King of Iowa, move to discharge the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, Rules, House Administration and Appropriations from the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4972) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was referred to said committees on March 25, 2010, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures."

Its target is the $940 billion, or greater, bill adopted by the Democrat-controlled Congress in March.

Advocates say constituents need to call their representatives to tell them to get on board right away so that the petition is positioned to move forward whether or not the GOP becomes the majority in the House after the 2010 fall elections.

The move by King also has prompted an online petition campaign to rally the public to the cause.

"Who would have thought we might have a chance to repeal Obamacare – this term?" exclaimed Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WND, in response to the plan by King.

Now it's time for the public to turn up the pressure, he urged. Farah's public petition drive is intended to coalesce support for King's measure.

King has explained, "Republicans are the proponents of limited government, personal responsibility and constitutional liberties, principles which 'Obamacare' violates. Recognizing this fact, every House Republican voted against 'Obamacare' just three months ago. Now that our repeal effort has been endorsed by House GOP leadership, House Republicans should stand by their votes by signing onto discharge petition No. 11."

He said, "The American people did not want Obamacare passed, and they have consistently called for their representatives to show that they stand with them by repealing the legislation. Our discharge petition provides an avenue for repeal that even Speaker Pelosi cannot block. Republicans recognize that a clean, 100-percent repeal bill is the best strategy for uprooting 'Obamacare' lock, stock and barrel, and will continue to show their commitment to Obamacare's repeal by quickly signing our discharge petition."

Congressional officials said Pelosi, an adamant advocate for government-controlled health care, never would allow a vote on a plan to overturn Obamacare. But through the discharge-petition process in the House, if a majority of members sign on, she cannot stop it. It still would need to be moved through the Senate and, ultimately, the Oval Office, possibly by a veto override.

An inside congressional source told WND the pressure also will be on all other members as the November 2010 elections approach, since poll after poll has indicated a significant majority of Americans dislike Obamacare to the point of seeking its repeal.

The issue is expected to play a role in the elections, with voters, especially supporters of tea-party principles, calling on their representatives to stand up against what a multitude of lawsuits already are describing as an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats.

Both Democrats and Republicans will have to answer to voters on the issue, the source said.

And, whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in a majority after the fall elections, the petition will put the issue in a position to be forwarded immediately.

"This isn't a battle we want to give up on," the source told WND. "Obamacare needs to get pulled out by the roots."

House members who previously endorsed King's plan are:

1. Steve King, Iowa
2. Connie Mack, Florida
3. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota
4. Todd Tiahrt, Kansas
5. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
6. Tom Price, Georgia
7. Paul C. Broun, Georgia
8. Jerry Moran, Kansas
9. Tom Graves, Georgia
10. Rob Bishop, Utah
11. Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania
12. Mike Pence, Indiana
13. Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia
14. Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
15. Jeb Hensarling, Texas
16. Louie Gohmert, Texas
17. Judy Biggert, Illinois
18. John Boozman, Arkansas
19. Kenny Marchant, Texas
20. Jim Jordan, Ohio
21. Jason Chaffetz, Utah
22. Gary G. Miller, California
23. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia
24. Doug Lamborn, Colorado
25. Robert E. Latta, Ohio
26. Tom Cole, Oklahoma
27. Trent Franks, Arizona
28. K. Michael Conaway, Texas
29. Jo Bonner, Alabama
30. Dan Burton, Indiana
31. J. Gresham Barrett, South Carolina
32. John Linder, Georgia
33. Bill Posey, Florida
34. Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
35. Mike Coffman, Colorado
36. Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
37. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
38. John Campbell, California
39. Mike Rogers, Alabama
40. Randy Neugebauer, Texas
41. Charles K. Djou, Hawaii
42. Pete Sessions, Texas
43. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wisconsin
44. Howard Coble, North Carolina
45. Candice S. Miller, Michigan
46. Steve Scalise, Louisiana
47. Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama
48. Phil Gingrey, Georgia
49. Kevin Brady, Texas
50. Pete Olson, Texas
51. C.W. Bill Young, Florida
52. Tom McClintock, California
53. Joe Wilson, South Carolina
54. Mac Thornberry, Texas
55. John R. Carter, Texas
56. John Shimkus, Illinois
57. Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
58. Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
59. John Fleming, Louisiana
60. Jeff Flake, Arizona
61. W. Todd Akin, Missouri
62. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
63. Donald A. Manzullo, Illinois
64. Eric Cantor, Virginia
65. Scott Garrett, New Jersey
66. John A. Boehner, Ohio
67. Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina
68. Kay Granger, Texas
69. Parker Griffith, Alabama
70. Ted Poe, Texas
71. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
72. Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
73. Fred Upton, Michigan
74. Jean Schmidt, Ohio
75. John Sullivan, Oklahoma
76. Peter J. Roskam, Illinois
77. Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
78. Michael C. Burgess, Texas
79. Ken Calvert, California
80. Lee Terry, Nebraska
81. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina
82. Mary Bono Mack, California
83. Spencer Bachus, Alabama
84. Jeff Miller, Florida
85. John B. Shadegg, Arizona
86. Gregg Harper, Mississippi
87. John Abney Culberson, Texas
88. Dana Rohrabacher, California
89. David P. Roe, Tennessee
90. J. Randy Forbes, Virginia
91. Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
92. Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
93. Denny Rehberg, Montana
94. Sue Wilkins Myrick, North Carolina
95. Tom Latham, Iowa
96. Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
97. John Kline, Minnesota
98. Ron Paul, Texas
99. Thomas J. Rooney, Florida
100. Daniel E. Lungren, California
101. Darrell E. Issa, California
102. Harold Rogers, Kentucky
103. John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
104. Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
105. Duncan Hunter, California
106. Sam Graves, Missouri
107. Bob Inglis, South Carolina
108. Edward R. Royce, California
109. Ralph M. Hall, Texas
110. Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois
111. Michael T. McCaul, Texas
112. Thaddeus G. McCotter, Michigan
113. Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
114. Lamar Smith, Texas
115. Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
116. Wally Herger, California
117. Vern Buchanan, Florida
118. Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey
119. Geoff Davis, Kentucky
120. Jack Kingston, Georgia
121. Brian P. Bilbray, California
122. Zach Wamp, Tennessee
123. Jerry Lewis, California
124. Erik Paulsen, Minnesota
125. Roy Blunt, Missouri
126. Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri
127. Frank Wolf, Virginia
128. George Radanovich, California
129. Steve Austria, Ohio
130. Greg Walden, Oregon
131. Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
132. Adrian Smith, Nebraska
133. Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska
134. Frank A. LoBiondo, New Jersey
135. Sam Johnson, Texas
136. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin
137. John L. Mica, Florida
138. Michael R. Turner, Ohio
139. Aaron Schock, Illinois
140. Cliff Stearns, Florida
141. Devin Nunes, California
142. David Dreier, California
143. Christopher John Lee, New York
144. Kevin McCarthy, California
145. Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
146. Leonard Lance, New Jersey
147. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, California
148. Ander Crenshaw, Florida
149. Elton Gallegly, California
150. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey

WND reported recently when House Minority Leader John Boehner gave Obamacare a failing grade for its first three months due to evidence of billions in new taxes, job losses it will trigger, its increase of the deficit and other impacts Americans now are discovering.

It's being revealed that nearly another half a billion dollars in taxes for Obama's plan will come from charity-based 501(c)(3) hospitals and a whopping $70 billion will come from those who don't buy "government-approved" health insurance or in some other way fail to comply with the law's demands.

A recent poll by the Obama-friendly CNN revealed 56 percent of the public disapproves of the law.

"While rushing their massive government takeover of health care through Congress, President Obama and congressional Democrats promised it would create jobs, lower costs, reduce the deficit, allow Americans to keep their health care, protect seniors' coverage, prohibit taxpayer-funded abortion and, of course, gain the support of the American people," Boehner's report said.

"It isn't just that none of these promises or predictions have turned out to be true. In every instance, Obamacare has made matters worse," the report said.

Among the study's conclusions:

* "Some of the nation's largest employers have announced they will be forced to make cutbacks as a result of Obamacare's job-killing mandates."
* "Two independent government entities … have confirmed that the new law fails to lower health-care costs and reduce the deficit."
* "Obamacare includes at least a dozen violations of President Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class families."
* "The government has confirmed that the new law's massive Medicare cuts will fall squarely on the backs of seniors, millions of whom will be forced off their current Medicare coverage."

The report also said Obama officials have confirmed their new law "will force some 87 million Americans to drop their current coverage despite President Obama's promise that Americans would be able to keep the coverage that they have."

The report further states Obama has done nothing to implement his executive order that was supposed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions.

The result is that people like it no better now – or even less – than before they knew many of the details. Dozens of states also have revolted against the plan.

"This report chronicles Obamacare's broken promises in the three months since it became law," Boehner said. "The American people remain squarely opposed to this government takeover of health care that has already failed to live up to specific promises made by President Obama and Washington Democrats.

"Republicans are listening to the American people, and fighting to repeal Obamacare so we can replace it with common-sense reforms focused on lowering costs and protecting jobs," he said.

According to the plan, some $400 million will hit nonprofit hospitals, $17 billion will come from those "who do not purchase government-approved health insurance," another $52 billion will hit workers "who fail to fully comply with government health-insurance mandates," and a tax hike for Medicare will pull another $210 billion from the grocery budgets of Americans.

More than 130 top economists also submitted a document, according to the report, that "the health-care bill contains a number of provisions that will eliminate jobs, reduce hours and wages and limit future job creation."

Obama's law is facing a number of lawsuits contesting its constitutionality, claiming the federal government has no right to require consumers to participate in a business transaction – the purchase of health insurance – if they choose not to.

This Goverment keeps Feeding its Self and will not Die

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

LAS VEGAS - JULY 24: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks at the fifth annual Netroots Nation convention at the Rio Hotel & Casino July 24, 2010 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Netroots Nation, formerly called the YearlyKos Convention, is a convention for political activists and bloggers. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Like the gauze-wrapped creatures who just won't stay dead in those late-night movies you're too tired to turn off, the "public option" has returned to Washington.

An analysis by Investor's Business Daily, which called it the "Zombie Option," said the idea – rejected in debate over the health-care plan signed into law earlier this year – is being promoted yet again as a way to save the government money.

Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Pete Stark of California and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois have joined to put together the newest proposal, called the "public option act."

It was only a few days ago when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told a Las Vegas convention, "We're going to have a public option. It's' a question of when," according to IBD.

The plan by that time already was propsed on paper, and it now has 128 House Democratic Party co-sponsors, the report said.

Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

The proposal states: "For years beginning with 2014, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the 'Secretary') shall provide for the offering through Exchanges established under this title of a health benefits plan (in this Act referred to as the 'public health insurance option') that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high-quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this section. In designing the option, the Secretary's primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care."



IBD's commentary said Schakowsky claims it would be a cost-saving measure, just like Medicare.

"Is that the same Medicare that in 1966 was only supposed to cost $3 billion, and that the House Ways and Means Committee once assured the country would only cost $12 billion by 1990? Is it the same program that really ended up costing $600 billion by 2008," the IBD commentary wondered.

IBD noted Obamacare itself is a "stepping stone" to the format of a public option.

"As Kathryn Nix of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies noted Wednesday, the Office of Personnel Management will be authorized to administer health plans," the commentary said. "'OPM would set benefits, premiums and medical-loss ratios for these plans, and there's nothing on the books to stop the agency from modeling the plans after a public option. Worse yet,' she adds, ObamaCare 'says nothing about any solvency requirements for the OPM-run plans.'"

The Washington Independent reported Woolsey's opinion that the program "can save billions of dollars and improve health care while doing it."

The bill's supporters claim the low cost of running a government program would be good for consumers because it would force private carriers to lower their costs also. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts it might reduce the government's budget deficit $68 billion within 10 years.

However, the Independent report said there would be strong objections from private insurance companies, and the actual vote on the plan isn't expected during this Congress.

A House Democratic aide told the Independent the next Congress could take it up.

In a forum section at the Independent, consumers weren't quite ready to believe that the congressional creation of another massive government program would help.

"What a crock ...every time the CBO comes out and sez, 'This program will save the taxpayers $ XXX billions of dollars.; AND THEN a few months later come out a[nd] tell us it is going to COST taxpayers billions of dollars," wrote one participant.

Mexican Officials to Patrol Staten Island Following Latest Bias Attack Sixth attack against immigrants since April

Police are investigating another assault on a Hispanic man in Staten Island as a possible hate crime -- and the Mexican government is now getting involved as well.

Five men attacked the 40-year-old Mexican man Friday night as he was walking home after a soccer game at Faber Park, cop said. The attackers allegedly pummeled him while yelling anti-Mexican epithets. The man suffered head trauma, a fractured jaw and needed ten stitches above his eye, officials said.

The group of men made off with his backpack.

This is at least the sixth violent, ethnically-charged incident that has taken place in the neighborhood since April, and community leaders are urging residents to remain alert.


“We will act decisively in order to protect our citizens and will actively promote that those guilty of these vicious attacks are brought to justice expeditiously. We are working hand-in-hand with local authorities on all levels,” said Consul General of Mexico in New York, Ruben Beltran in an email to the Staten Island Advance.

The latest victim is a construction worker who has called the United States his home for the last five years, said Beltran. Police say they are looking for five suspects in this latest case, which is being investigated as a hate crime.

Beltran has asked the NYPD to “conduct a thorough investigation” of the alleged hate-crime cases. Beltran has offered “extensive cooperation and all the necessary support to ensure that justice is served.”

According to the Advance, this latest incident has promoted the Mexican Consulate to post personnel in Staten Island until further notice. This move is an effort to safeguard the rights of individuals and effectively assist and provide information to the Mexican residents of this area.

The Guardian Angels, lead by Curtis Sliwa, have also pledged to patrol the area. Make the Road New York, a local community group that serves the communities of Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island is organizing a march that will take place on Wednesday.

Mexican officials have also created an information line that for immigrants to contact if they are afraid to contact authorities directly, the number is 1-800-724-7264.

Best-seller: Even Hawaii birth won't make Obama legitimate If his parental claims are true, they could not confer 'natural born citizenship,' say auth

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama returns to the Oval Office after discussing his legislative agenda after meeting with bi-partisan Members of Congress in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington on July 27, 2010. UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg Photo via Newscom

President Obama may not fit the constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president, conclude the authors of a recently released book.

An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.

With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate.

Here's the rundown on Obama's ties to "communists, socialists and other anti-American extremists" – all in "The Manchurian President."

"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."

(Story continues below)



Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., and was 18 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."

The clause 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen".

A "citizen" is defined as: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.

There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.

Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements.

'Natural born' defined

The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.

"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President."

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

"So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.

The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

"So by de Vattel's standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

Supreme Court casts doubt

Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.

But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.

Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president."

The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen' clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama's father was not an American citizen."

"The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein.

"The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.

The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Obama called 'Manchurian President'

Meanwhile, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama and his radical background and ties.

Among the many finds of "The Manchurian President":

* A coalition of extremists, including a founder of William Ayers' Weather Underground domestic-terrorist organization, helped craft Obama's "stimulus" bill;

* Obama's health-care policy, masked by moderate populist rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers;

* Extremists are among Obama's "czars" and other top advisers. New information links top advisers Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to communist activists. The book uncovers correspondence in which a communist confesses to mentoring and educating Axelrod and helping the top Obama aide to secure his first job. Obama then later worked with the same communist, the book finds;

* Copious research reveals more about Obama's deep ties to Ayers, uncovering for the first time where and how Obama first met Ayers – and it is much earlier than previously believed;

* Important aspects of Obama's carefully covered-up college years, with new details of his student career at Occidental College and later at Columbia University, are revealed;

* Obama's early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church, are documented;

* Obama's associations with the Nation of Islam, Black Liberation Theology and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects;

* Obama's deep ties to ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented elsewhere, are covered. The book also crucially describes how a socialist-led, ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama's political career and now exerts major influence in the White House.

This should scare All Americans- Democrat: Let's have mandatory national service Measure orders U.S. citizens to perform duties under Obama for 2 year

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON - MARCH 17: U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) speaks during a news conference on AIDS March 17, 2010 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. About 50 church leaders gathered on Capitol Hill to pushed for approval of the National Black Clergy for the Elimination of HIV/AIDS Act of 2009 which with proposals for the government to fight against the deadly epidemic. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., would reinstate a compulsory military draft during wartime and require U.S. citizens not selected for military duty to perform a "national-service obligation" – as defined by President Obama – for a minimum of two years.

Rangel introduced the Universal National Service Act, or H.R. 5741, on July 15. The measure was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 23.

Rangel introduced similar bills in 2003, 2006 and 2007. His current bill does not have a co-sponsor.

Rangel took to the floor of the House to reintroduce H.R. 5741, stating, "I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war. It is H.R. 5741, and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they're men or women, whether they're straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened."



According to an announcement released by Rangel's office:

* The bill provides for a national-service obligation – either military or civilian – for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.

* Persons may be inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the president declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.

* Defines "national service" as either military or civilian service as defined by the president that promotes national or homeland security.

* Gives the president the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection.

* Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national-service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years.

* Directs the president to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act.

* Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20.

* Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector.

"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Rep. Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children.

"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way."

Prison Planet writer Rob Dew referenced the following video posted on YouTube and noted, "This echoes the sentiment of President Obama who asked Congress in February 2009 to send him a bipartisan bill in the spirit of national service."

Likewise, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advocated for similar universal civilian service in a 2006 book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," he co-authored with Bruce Reed. The following is an excerpt from pages 61-62 of that book:

As first reported by WND during Obama's presidential campaign, Obama himself called for a "civilian national-security force" July 2, 2008, in Colorado Springs, Colo.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national-security objectives that we've set," he said. "We've got to have a civilian national-security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Funny Funny Watch Money for Nothing - Dems Strait

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goe27p_2KbY