Monday, February 25, 2013

FBI Chief: Muslim Brotherhood Supports Terrorism

CAIR Identified by the FBI as part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee

CAIR Identified by the FBI as part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee

By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

Dallas--In testimony Tuesday, FBI Agent Lara Burns reported before the jury in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, right alongside HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). Agent Burns further testified that CAIR received money from HLF - a claim that Nihad Awad blatantly denied in a congressional testimony in September of 2003.
Burns also said that both Omar Ahmed and Nihad Awad, CAIR co-founders who today serve as CAIR’s chairman emeritus and executive director, respectively, were also listed as individual members the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee in America.
Awad and Ahmed are further connected to the Palestine Committee based on their positions as president and public relations director of the IAP, a Hamas front group that was responsible for the dissemination of propaganda, and has since been closed down as a result of a multi-million dollar civil judgment in a trial involving the murder of an American teenager by HAMAS terrorists.
CAIR, which touts itself as America’s premier Muslim civil rights organization, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial. Burns’ testimony so far has placed both Ahmed and Awad at a 1993 Philadelphia meeting where the HAMAS members and supporters discussed a strategy to kill the Oslo Peace Accords, which threatened to marginalize HAMAS. The group also discussed ways to improve HAMAS fundraising in America.
Government testimony regarding the role of CAIR reflects the prosecution’s attempt to prove that the HAMAS network in America was established through the Palestine Committee, or what the indictment called “a sub-group of active Muslim Brotherhood members of Palestinian origin.” The leader of this Committee was Musa Abu Marzook, a Specially Designated Terrorist since 1995, and Hamas’ current Deputy Political Bureau Chief. Through this committee, a number of organizations were established to promote HAMAS politically and financially, including HLF, IAP and UASR.
What is the Palestine Committee
In 1988, the head of the Palestine Section (a.k.a. the Palestine Body) of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Levant came to America, where he met with fellow Muslim Brothers and established the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. This is revealed in a1991 letter seized from the home of unindicted co-conspirator Ismail Elbarasse.
An October 1992 internal memo (also seized from Elbarrasse’s home) explains: Palestine is the one for which Muslim Brotherhood prepared armies – made up from the children of Islam in the Arab and Islamic nations to liberate its land from the abomination and the defilement of the children of the Jews and they watered its pure soil with their honorable blood which sprouted into a jihad that is continuing until the Day of Resurrection and provided a zeal without relenting making the slogan of its children “it is a Jihad for victory or martyrdom."
The Palestine Section of this memo explains the founding of the Section and notes that Palestine Committees were being established all over the world:
At the end of the seventies, the Shamm [Levant] Countries Movement opened a new section which was called “The Palestine Section” to oversee the affairs of the Ikhwan inside the Occupied Territories. It was considered the liaison between the followers of the Movement inside and outside. In the beginning of the eighties, the Islamic action for Palestine experienced distinguished leaps. At the inside level, groups and apparatuses were formed to confront the Zionist enemy and they carried different names then such as “The Palestinian Mujahedeen” and other names. At the outside level, a number of associations, Islamic youths and students unions were formed to ally [sic] the masses in order to render the Palestinian cause victorious.
The memo calls on the Palestine Committees, to work to “increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas" to "fight surrendering solutions," and to publicize and focus on “the savagery of the Jews.”
The amended bylaws attached to the 1991 letter explains that the Palestine Committee in America will be composed of the heads of the following organizations and committees:
1) Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
2) Occupied Land Fund (OLF, which later changed its name to the HLF)
3) United Association for Studies and Research (UASR)
4) Rehabilitation and Coordination Committee
5) Political Work and Foreign Relations Committee
6) Money and Investments Committee
CAIR was not created until 1994 which explains why it is not listed here.
The remarks at the end of the bylaws note that the International Shura Council (leadership council) directed them to achieve eight goals. Among them were:
-“Collecting of donations for the Islamic Resistance Movement from the Ikhwan and others.”
-“Bringing to the media light the case of [HAMAS founder] Sheik Ahmad Yasin and his ailing condition.”
-“Making use of what relationships the Ikhwan have in all fields and gatherings to serve the cause.”
Additionally, the internal memo notes that the president of IAP was a member of a section affiliated with the executive council. This establishes that these organizations, including IAP, were members of the Palestine Committee established by the Muslim Brotherhood, and that their leaders sat on the Committee.
In another development yesterday, prosecutors introduced a wiretap conversation between defendants Shukri Abu Bakr and Ghassan Elashi, in which they discussed IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson. Emerson first uncovered the ties between HLF and HAMAS in his 1994 PBS documentary, Jihad in America.
In the Aug. 2, 1995 call, Abu Bakr and Elashi discuss a Dallas Morning News editorial concerning U.S. plans to extradite Hamas political leader Musa Abu Marzook, who had been arrested while entering the country at John F. Kennedy airport in New York on an Israeli request that he face murder charges there.
Elashi reads from the editorial, which called for Marzook to be deported, but not to Israel. To release him, the editorial said, would send a message that America offers refuge to terrorists. According to a government transcript of the call, Elashi invokes Emerson's name after the editorial: "Sadly, Arab and Islamic organizations in America are perceiving the action against Mr. Marzook as 'anti-Islam' and 'anti-Arab.'"
"He says 'sadly,'" Elashi repeats. "Doesn't that bring you to Steven Emerson?" "Yeah, yeah, yeah," Abu Bakr responds. "Don't be surprised if Steven Emerson is the one who wrote it."
Elashi also expresses concern that the Morning News "is referring to us in a way or another" when it mentions the FBI has noted terrorist cells were operating in North Texas.
The trial continues Wednesday with the cross examination of Agent Burns by defendant Abdulrahman Odeh's lawyer.

Exposing the Muslim Brotherhood Deception

Exposing the Muslim Brotherhood Deception
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:53
0



The following is a list compiled by James Simpson for Discover the Networks. It is a very special inventory and it is enough for one to just scroll down its long, long list of organizations and people who support, finance, and promote Jihad in America. Hopefully it will astound you into seeing the magnitude of the attack we are under by the well-funded, well-organized Muslim Brotherhood which President Obama and his team are siding with. Don’t be silent…you can make a difference.

"The end goal of everything we are talking about is the re-establishment of the Islamic form of government." Muslim Students Association West event, Los Angeles, CA , 2005
The Investigative Project on Terrorism has produced a new documentary titled "Jihad in America: the Grand Deception." This is a documentary worth watching and promoting. Our popular press and political culture have ignored this threat, and the Obama administration is actively promoting Islam, both here and abroad. Muslim activists have established positions of authority within the White House, FBI, DHS, DoD, and elsewhere within our government. Even Grover Norquist, director of Americans for Tax Reform, has discredited the threat from Muslim extremists in our midst.
Many experts have echoed the danger articulated in The Grand Deception. The Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney has produced a free online video titled "The Muslim Brotherhood in America: A Course in 10 Parts." Gaffney is a leading expert on national defense issues, and published "Sharia: the Threat to America ," along with former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy and others, which details how the Brotherhood has planned to subvert this country. I reported on this for Right Side News andBreitbart's Big Peace when the book appeared in 2010.
Cliff Kincaid held a National Press Club press conference on February 5th to detail how Al Gore's sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera threatens to provide this anti-American, radical Islamist television network a propaganda outlet within our borders. Cliff reports that Al Jazeera appears to be breaking multiple laws in its effort to expand its influence among American viewers, Obama's Justice Department knows about it and is apparently doing nothing.
While the mainstream media and leftwing politicians dance on the graves of 9-11 victims in their celebration of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood has made its intentions clear:
The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions…
The accompanying chart reveals the Brotherhood's network of associates and affiliates within the U.S. and throughout the world. This should offer a snapshot of the problems this organization poses.
It is way past time to stop sacrificing our lives and country on the alter of political correctness and diversity, and call the Muslim Brotherhood, most other Muslim advocacy organizations and the politicians of both parties who support them, the direct national security threat they are.



http://www.rightsidenews.com/images/stories/February_2013/US_News/Islam_in_America/Muslim_Brotherhood_in_America.jpg
Muslim Brotherhood in America
 Muslim Brotherhood in America

Brotherhood Related People/Organizations
 

Abdurahman Alamoudi – Hamas/Hezbollah supporter, as Clinton advisor help craft ACLU lawsuits against Christians. Certified Muslim military chaplains. Gained access to W. Bush admin by funding Grover Norquist’s Islamic Institute. Funded AQ and assassination plot against Saudi King. 23 yr sentence for terror financing now being appealed by Obama Justice Department.
Al Qaeda (AQ) – Muslim terrorist organization responsible for 9/11 and other major terrorist attacks since 1990s. Linked to HamasHezbollahEIJIGMB and other Islamist groups. Since bin Laden assassination led by Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
Ayman Al-Zawahiri – Current al Qaeda #1. Joined MB at 14, EIJ at 18. Former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko claimed Al-Zawahiri recruited by Soviet KGB in 1997.
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) – Violent Marxist/Leninist group. Demands independent Palestinian State with Jerusalem as capital; unconditional return of Arab refugees; the liberation of all Islamic prisoners. Direct ties to Palestinian terrorists. Assisted “Arab Spring” uprisings toppling regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and and elsewhere. Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – Believed to have knowingly hidden Osama bin Laden. Connected to leaders ofJamaat ul-FuqraICNA, Mumbai terrorists, others.
KGB – Soviets created the PLO and other secular Arab terrorist groups. Have funded, trained and armed almost all Muslim factions since the beginning. Former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko claimed Al-Zawahiri recruited by Soviet KGB in 1997.
Palestinian Terrorists – Includes Egyptian Islamic Jihad, (EIJ) – MB offshoot that assassinated Sadat. Split into two groups, Palestinian Islamic Jihad—Al Qaeda #1 Ayman al Zawahiri lead in 1980s—and the Islamic Group, led by the Blind Sheikh – Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of NYC bomb plots. Evolved into Hamas. Also includes the PLO and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, both created by the KGB.
Jamaat ul-Fuqra (JUF) – 35 US-based terrorist training communities include firearms/explosives/kidnapping training. Dedicated to “purification of Islam through violence.” Founder, Pakistani Sheikh Muburak Gilani said: “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.” Linked with Pakistani ISI. Helped train 1993 WTC bombers. Conducted assassinations & bombings since 1979. US law enforcement hands off.

Subversion 

Holy Land Foundation – Fundraising operation closed in 2001 for supporting terrorism. 2007 HLF trialrevealed MB subversive goals to destroy the US from within, and identified 29 organizations supportive of those goals. Unindicted co-conspirators include CAIRISNAICNAUASR, MSA and others.
Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) – Includes members of Jamaat e-Islami, Pakistani group that helped form the Taliban. Hosts anti-American speakers. Protests incarceration of terrorists. Identified in HLF trial as “friend” sharing MB’s subversive goals.
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – Established in 1981 by MSA. Largest Islamic organization in US. Owns between 50-80% of Mosques in North America. Provides Wahhabist teachings to 80% of all US mosques. Identified as terror financers by US Senators. At least 9 subsidiaries. ISNA & all subsidiaries identified in HLF trial as “friends” sharing MB’s subversive goals.
Muslim American Society (MAS) – Brotherhood Front group founded in 1992 to “promote Islam as a total way of life.” MAS President Esam Omeish, Virginia Commission of Immigration member, resigned MAS in 2007 when support for Hamas was discovered. MAS Freedom Foundation Director Mahdi Bray former SDSISNA affiliate.
Muslim Brotherhood (MB) – Founded 1928 by Egyptian teacher & Hitler fan, Hassan al Banna.Proclaimed: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Original inspiration for most Muslim terrorist organizations. Assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (1981), Egyptian PM Mahmud Fahmi Nuqrashi (1948), Active in 70-100 nations. Al Qaeda’s #1 Ayman al Zawahiri former MB. Terrorist group Hamas founded as MB’s Palestinian chapter. 2007 HLF trial revealed MB’s subversive plan of: “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house…” Ultimate source of over 29 North American radical Islamic groups.
Muslim Student’s Association of the US and Canada (MSA) – Founded 1963. First Muslim Brotherhood organization in US. Key lobbying group for Saudi Wahhabi Islam. 600 campus MSA chapters nationwide. Express virulent anti-Israel sentiments. Created many subsidiaries. Largest isISNA. Identified in HLF trial as “friend” sharing MB’s subversive goals.
United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) – Founded in Chicago in 1989 by Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook. Base for political command of Hamas in the United States. Identified HLF trial as “friend” sharing MB’s subversive goals. Terrorist planning in Virginia suspected.

Influence

ACORN – Radical group created by Wade Rathke. Offshoot group Organizer’s Forum visitingMuslim Brotherhood in Egypt this coming fall to discuss “transition and democracy issues.” Includes union leaders, former SEIU President Andy Stern, and others. Many connections toObama.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – Founded by communist Roger Baldwin, who said “communism is the goal.” Opposes all post-9/11 security measures. Works with CAIR against anti-terrorism security efforts. Defended Sami al Arian and Lynn Stewart. Open borders supporter.
Arab Spring – Uprisings throughout Middle East that have caused the downfall of governments in Egypt and Tunisia, and threaten regimes in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere. Muslim Brotherhood the likely winner in all of these revolutions. Radical Left suspected of involvement.
Code Pink/Global Exchange – Founders Jodie Evans (Code Pink) and Medea Benjamin (Global Exchange). Trips to Gaza, invited to Iran by Ahmadinejad, visited the Taliban. Participated in ISM’sGaza Flotilla and Fly-in ActionProvided $600,000 to terrorists fighting American Marines in Fallujah,Iraq. Evans major fundraising bundler for Obama in 2008. Delivered messages to Obama fromHamasTaliban.
Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – Influential US-based front for Islamists. Founded in 1994 by members of Hamas front group. Co-founder said: “Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant…” Members advise DHS, FBI, local Law enforcement and politicians of both parties.
International Solidarity Movement (ISM) – Radical left group with direct ties to Palestinian terrorists and possibly al Qaeda. Imports Western radicals to protest Israeli occupation and engage in propaganda stunts, including Gaza Flotilla and “Fly-in Action”. Assisted British suicide bombers in fatal Tel Aviv bombing. 2 ISM activists killed in war zone. Associated with Code PinkGlobal ExchangeFRSO and other radical leftists.
National Lawyers Guild (NLG) – Legal bulwark of the US Communist Party. NLG lawyer Lynn Stewart sentenced to 10 years for assisting her client, jailed terror mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman. NLG helped defend Sami Al-Arian.
Grover Norquist – Founded Islamic Institute with loans from Abdurahman Alamoudi, later convicted terrorist as financier. Norquist helped Islamists obtain influential positions in W. Bush administration. Discredits fears of Muslim threat.
Obama Administration – Formally recognized MB June 2001. MB does not recognize Israel. InvitedMB to 2009 Cairo speech to “Muslim world.” ISNA President said prayer at Obama Inauguration. Obama DHS Asst. Secy. Policy Development raised MPAC funds. AG Holder seeking to reduce 23 year prison term for terror financier Alamoudi.
SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) – Founded 1959. American radical organization formed by red-diaper baby children of American communists. Former members, like Ayers, Dohrn, Rathke and others, today associated with Obama, Muslim radicals, amnesty, anti-War, environmental, and most other anti-American hate groups.
Unions – Union organizers Many union OF members. Two SEIU Local 73 members investigated for assisting Palestinian terrorists. Local 73 served as “ground game” for Obama’s 2008 campaign. Tied in with Gaza Flotilla and ISM.
  Source: James Simpson for Discover the Networks

Court says Obama appointments violate constitution

Court says Obama appointments violate constitution

 Email this Story

Jan 25, 7:11 PM (ET)
By SAM HANANEL

(AP) Richard Cordray stands left as President Barack Obama announces in the State Dining Room of the...
Full Image

Google sponsored links
Master of Public Admin - Earn Your Public Administration Master's Online at UNC. Get Info.
OnlineMPA.UNC.edu
 
Home Defense Plan - 10 Deadly Mistakes To Avoid A Brutal Home Invasion
www.LegallyConcealed.org
 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a far-reaching decision that could severely limit a chief executive's powers to make recess appointments.
The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit marked a victory for Republicans and business groups critical of the labor board. If it stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions over the past year, including some that make it easier for unions to organize.
When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions - some lasting less than a minute - were a sham.
The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the labor board would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.
"The decision is novel and unprecedented," Carney said. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."
Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid.
The Justice Department hinted that the administration would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, which was rendered by three conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. "We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the statement said.
The court acknowledged that the ruling conflicts with what some other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.
"I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers," said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond. "The court's reading has limited the president's ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration."
The ruling also threw into question the legitimacy of Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate case.
Carney insisted the court's ruling affects only a single case before the labor board and would have no bearing on Cordray's appointment. Obama on Thursday renominated Cordray for the job.
The case challenging the recess appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a Washington state bottling company that claimed an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were not properly appointed. The D.C. Circuit panel agreed.
Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.
But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic - as Democrats had done in the past - specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.
The three-judge panel flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed that the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.
"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
The court ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, 2012, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Sentelle's opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.
"With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as "a victory for accountability in government."
If the ruling stands, it would invalidate more than 600 board decisions issued over the past year. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.
Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.
All three vacancies on the labor board had been open for months before Obama acted to fill them.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa called the ruling "a radical departure from precedent" and argued that Obama had no choice but to act.
"Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the board's legal authority to act," Harkin said.
If Obama's recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is eventually ruled invalid, it could nullify all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which affect the mortgage business.
---
Follow Sam Hananel on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SamHananelAP


Google sponsored links
 
Obams's Gas Price Hike? - Is president Obama to blame for gas prices? Vote here now.
www.newsmax.com/surveys
 
Exercise Your Brain - Games You Didn't Know Existed to Fight Brain Decline and Aging.
www.lumosity.com
 
Windows 7 Driver Download - Windows 7 Drivers Latest Download. Microsoft Certified. (Recommended)
www.Windows-7.DriverUpdate.net

Virginia Set To Charge Obama With Death Penalty Murder

Virginia Set To Charge Obama With Death Penalty Murder



A stunning Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) report on current legislative actions being considered and/or proposed by the individual States in America states that Virginia appears to be close to executing a warrant against President Barack Obama for the crime of “capital murder” which carries the death penalty.  

According to this report, the top law enforcement officer in Virginia, Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli [photo 2nd left], believes he has sufficient evidence to charge Obama with murder over the US Presidents killing of former State resident, and US citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi.
Under Virginia law, this report continues, “the willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of more than one person within a three-year period” constitutes the charging of Obama with capital murder, which carries the death sentence, due to the President’s killing of al-Aulaqi’s 16 year old son, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, who, like his father, was also a US citizen.

Attorney General Cuccinelli, this report says, has long been critical of Obama and during a 2010 appearance, when an audience member asked, “what can we do about Obama and the birth certificate thing”, responded that if Virginia challenged a law, he could seek to invalidate it because “someone qualified to be President didn't sign it”, and the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya did not “seem beyond the realm of possibility”.

Virginia appears to one of the most anti-Obama regime States as evidenced by when the White House called drone strikes against Americans on US soil 'legal,' 'ethical' and 'wise' - even without evidence of a pending attack – they responded by starting the process of enacting a law banning the use of police and/or Federal government drones, and their city of Charlottesville becoming the first in the United States to outlaw these pilotless assassins from being in their skies.

Al-Aulaqi, this report says, served as imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque near Falls Church, Virginia, serving Muslims in Northern Virginia. He also led academic discussions frequented by FBI Director of Counter-Intelligence for the Middle East Gordon M. Snow. Al-Aulaqi also served as the Muslim chaplain at George Washington University and in 2002 he became the first imam to conduct a prayer service for the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association at the US Capitol.

In 2010, however, Obama signed an “assassination order” against al-Aulaqi and on 30 September 2011 he was killed after being targeted by a CIA drone strike in Yemen.

Two weeks later, on 14 October 2011, al-Aulaqi’s son Abdulrahman was likewise killed in Yemen by Obama’s order leading human rights groups to ask questions as to why this child, an American teenager, was killed by the US in a country with which the United States is not at war. Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), further stated after this childs assassination, “If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who’s being targeted, and why.”

The Obama regime, however, disagrees with the ACLU and in a memo obtained by NBC News this past week refers to a broader definition of imminence and specifically says their government is not required to have “clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future” in order to assassinate anyone the President chooses without either charges or trial.
The highly respected US Constitutional lawyer and political journalist Glen Greenwald, writing in London Guardian newspaper, further stated, in his article titled Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination Of US Citizens:

“The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen. 

Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title “disposition matrix”.

So truly Orwellian has the United States become under the Obama regime, it should be further noted, that while at the same time their President claims the right to kill or imprison any American citizen we wants, for any reason he wants, and to keep those reasons secret, the real terrorists being targeted are children, and include:

A 10-year-old boy who was nearly arrested in his New York school for saying the words “Nerf gun.”
A 5-year-old boy in Massachusetts suspended from school for building a “Lego gun.”
A 5-year-old girl in Pennsylvania suspended from school as a “terrorist threat” because she extolled the virtues of a Hello Kitty toy, and said, “I’ll shoot you, you shoot me and we’ll all play together.”
A 6-year-old Maryland boy suspended from school because he used his fingers like a gun and said “pow” while playing during recess.
A 10-year-old girl in Philadelphia searched and called a “murderer” by her school because she had in her possession a scrap of paper that looked like a gun.
A 7-year-old Colorado student suspended from school because he threw an “imaginary grenade” trying to “save the world from evil” while playing during recess.
A 10-year-old Alexandria boy arrested for bringing a toy gun to school.
To if these seven children will now become targets for assassination by Obama too it is not in our knowing, other than to mention that in the US Presidents new “disposition matrix” it might be so…and no one will ever be allowed to know why.
By: whatdoesitmean

Obama In Contempt Of Court, Disputes Claims

Obama In Contempt Of Court, Disputes Claims
Friday, November 4, 2011 6:49
0
A legal expert who already has won a partial victory in his fight with Barack Obama over the president's signature Obamacare nationalization of health care decision-making now is calling for the court to find Obama in contempt.
The request comes from Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, which brought a case against the White House over Obama's development of Obamacare.
Klayman has alleged that Obama's multiple meetings with representatives of Planned Parenthood and other organizations constituted a federal advisory committee, and that refusing to release details about the meetings violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
It was in August when a U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts ruled that part of the case could advance, determining that Klayman "has alleged sufficiently … that the committee here was an advisory committee under the FACA.."
He noted Freedom Watch "may be entitled to mandamus review against the president, and dismissing the complaint [as the White House wanted] on separation of powers grounds would be premature."
Now Klayman has filed a motion for order to show cause, suggesting strongly that the White House is thumbing its nose at the court and its orders.
In fact, that's exactly what is alleged.
"In an attempt to circumvent the court's order, defendant President Barack Obama's supplemental memorandum on mootness effectively rebukes and thus 'thumbs its nose' at the court's memorandum of opinion and order of Aug. 12, 2011," the motion explains.
That happened because the White House did not respond to questions about whether the special advisory committee still is, in fact, meeting.
"Plaintiff had consistently and meritoriously maintained that such ongoing meetings and/or communications must still be taking place, since implementation of what has become known as 'Obamacare' involves thousands of regulations, and there is much at stake concerning such healthcare reform, particularly during this period leading up to the presidential elections in 2012," Klayman argues.
He noted that the court agreed with his argument that "a de facto federal advisory committee could exist was properly pled."
"The court … [ordered] defendants to advise whether meetings and/or communications were still ongoing with nongovernmental persons and entities," he wrote. "Despite defendants' own acknowledgment of the court's unequivocal order, defendants have opted to avoid compliance, seeking to side-step answering candidly and honestly. … Defendants have merely submitted the disingenuous, nonresponsive, and misleading sworn declaration of Kimberly D. Harris, deputy assistant and deputy counsel to the president in the office of the White House Counsel.
"In this sworn declaration, defendants to seek to sidestep perjury allegations they were forced to admit that such meetings and communications were, in fact, taking place in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," Klayman wrote.
But instead of answering, the defendants "brazenly alleged that the court's 'assumptions are misplaced.'"
He continued, "The Aug. 12 order from the judge told the defendants to respond to a simple question: whether 'the committee has stopped meeting in the wake of Congress passing and the president signing' the bill.
"Now the White House explains it is "difficult to respond," Klayman's motion said.
The statement of Harris admitted "PlannedParenthood and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with many other individuals and entities, attended meetings at the White House, at times in groups, to express their views on health care reform."
But then she explained, "there was and is no such committee [so] there are no committee documents and no past, present or future committee meetings."
Klayman argued that the White House is trying to stall a response and trying to mislead the court with issues that already have been determined.
"Perhaps because they think given their stature is 'above the law," the argument noted.
"Civil contempt is proper given defendants' failure to comply with the court's order and intentional refusal to respond to the court's question," Klayment wrote.
The August ruling came in a claim filed by Freedom Watch in 2009 alleging that as Obama pushed various interests hard for support for Obamacare, the White House set up a team of lobbyists from the Chamber of Commerce, Planned Parenthood, the AARP, American Medical Associatino and others.
The committee was to discuss the issue and build support for it.
It was last winter when the White House refused to give up information about negotiations with various groups over Obamacare, saying he has a "privilege" to keep such communications concealed.
Among other arguments, a letter from Marcia Berman, a senior counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, told Klayman, "Defendants object to the subpoena on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected by various recognized privileges, such as the deliberative process privilege and the presidential communications privilege."
Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, is in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., contending the president's conduct falls within the scope of the act that "requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends."
He said, "Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written," he said when the case was launched.
These arguments are in addition to the multiple lawsuits that allege Obamacare's demand that consumers buy the insurance specified by the government or pay massive penalties simply is unconstitutional. That dispute appears to be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court at any time now, as lower courts have issued conflicting rulings.
Klayman, the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a U.S. president committed a crime, has pursued cases against the Clintons, Dick Cheney, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He built a reputation that prompted writers for the NBC drama series "The West Wing" to create a character, "Harry Klaypool," based on his work

Read more: Obama in contempt of court, Obamacare dispute claims http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=363821#ixzz1ciVLKPmK

Obama Illinois bar application fraud, Obama lied about drug use other names and tickets, Andy Martin complaint letter to IL Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission

Obama Illinois bar application fraud, Obama lied about drug use other names and tickets, Andy Martin complaint letter to IL Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission

Obama Illinois bar application fraud, Obama lied about drug use other names and tickets, Andy Martin complaint letter to IL Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission
“Why did Barack Obama surrender his IL law license?”…Citizen Wells
“They can’t punish someone who has resigned, which is why so many corrupt lawyers in Illinois resign before they are disbarred.”…Andy Martin
“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”…George Washington 
Citizen Wells articles about fraud committed by Obama on his Illinois Bar Application have been getting a lot of attention lately. I am reprinting what I consider to be the more damning one. Andy Martin, whether you agree with him or not, was in the forefront of questioning Barack Obama prior to 2008. Martin has a legal background and below you will see his complaint against Obama from March 13, 2007  filed with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. You will also find an email exchange between me and Andy Martin.
From Citizen Wells September 29, 2009.
There is much controversy regarding Barack Obama being eligible to be president. What we know is that Obama has not produced an actual birth certificate, his father was a British citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen, Obama has kept hidden almost all official documents related to his past. One of the records Obama was not completely able to hide was his IL bar application. Here is data from Obama’s bar application that was saved in 2008.
BObarApplication
The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission
An agency of the Illinois Supreme Court

Rules of the Board of Admissions and Committee on Character and Fitness
RULE 6   CHARACTER AND FITNESS REQUIREMENTS
“Rule 6.4. The revelation or discovery of any of the following should be treated as cause for further detailed inquiry before the Committee decides whether the law student registrant or applicant possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law: (a) unlawful conduct; (b) academic misconduct; (c) making false statements, including omissions;
(d) misconduct in employment; (e) acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (f) abuse of legal process; (g) neglect of financial responsibilities; (h) neglect of professional obligations; (i) violation of an order of a court; (j) evidence of conduct indicating instability or impaired judgment; (k) denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds; (l) disciplinary action by a lawyer disciplinary agency or other professional disciplinary agency of any jurisdiction; (m) acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law; (n) failure to comply with the continuing duty of full disclosure to the Board and the Committee subsequent to the date of registration or application.”
Barack Obama fraudulently applied to the Illinois Bar.
  • Obama had 17 unpaid parking tickets from his days at Harvard.
  • Obama omitted his aliases of Barry Soetoro and Barry Obama.
  • Obama admitted to drug use when he was younger and there is strong reason to believe he was still using drugs.
Read the complete IL bar rules:
https://www.iardc.org/rulesadmissions.html#Rule%203,%20Character
From the Somerville News, March 7, 2007.
“Before Barack Obama was a United States senator and a presidential hopeful, he was a Harvard University law student living in Somerville who parked in bus stops and accumulated hundreds of dollars in parking tickets. And for nearly two decades those parking tickets went unpaid, until a representative of Obama’s settled all his outstanding debts with Cambridge’s Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department Jan. 26.
Obama attended Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991. During his time at Harvard, Obama lived at 365 Broadway in Somerville, according to his parking tickets. Records from the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation office show that between Oct. 5, 1988 and Jan. 12, 1990 Obama was cited for 17 traffic violations, sometimes committing two in the same day. The abuses included parking in a resident permit area, parking in a bus stop and failing to pay the meter.
Twelve of Obama’s 17 tickets were given to him on Massachusetts Avenue.
In one eight day stretch in 1988, Obama was cited seven times for parking violations and was fined $45. Thirteen of the 17 violations occurred within one month in 1988.
Obama’s disobedience of the rules of the road earned him $140 in fines from the City of Cambridge. The tickets went unpaid for over 17 years and $260 in late fees were added to the tab. On Jan. 26, the fines and late fees were paid in full. The final tally for Obama’s parking breaches was $400, according to Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation.
Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said the presidential candidate’s parking violations were not relevant.”
Read more:
http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_somerville_news/2007/03/obama_finally_p.html#more
“not relevant”??
Apparently they were relevent to the IL bar and running for president.
Andy Martin filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Board of Admissions, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and Illinois Supreme Court on March 13, 2007.
“March 13, 2007
Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar
625 S. College Street
Springfield, IL 62704
via fax (217) 522-3728
with copies to:
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission
Suite 1100
130 E. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
via fax (312) 565-1806
Clerk
Illinois Supreme Court
Supreme Court Building
Springfield, IL 62706
Re: Barack Hussein Obama (see attached)
COMPLAINT
Dear Board, Commission and Clerk’s Office:
I am addressing the following complaint to all three of your offices because
I am not sure which of you has jurisdiction to review the matters submitted
below.
Please deem this letter a formal complaint and request for investigation
submitted to all three of your offices, although I understand that only one
office will likely have authority to proceed with an actual investigation.
1. Background facts
a. Bar admission of Barack Hussein Obama
Mr. Obama was admitted to the Illinois Bar on December 17, 1991 (see
attached ARDC page). He is currently inactive.
b. IBAB requirements
The IBAB requires that bar admission applicants disclose whether they have
outstanding parking tickets (see attached excerpt from current application).
Obviously, in so far as the admission of Mr. Obama is concerned, the form of
the 1991 IBAB application would be controlling.
c. Outstanding parking tickets of Obama
Mr. Obama recently paid outstanding parking tickets that were unpaid at the
time of his admission to the bar (see attached news stories).
2. Legal issues
If in 1991 Mr. Obama signed an application to IBAB and denied that he owed
outstanding parking tickets, he falsified his application and gained
admission to the bar by fraud.
3. Request for relief/investigation/action
I would respectfully submit that Mr. Obama’s 1991 application should be
scrutinized to determine whether he falsified his answers and whether he
gained admission to the bar on the basis of fraudulent representations.
If the investigating authority determines that Mr. Obama’s answers were
deceptive, I believe an appropriate sanction should be imposed. It obviously
should not be a major sanction but a public reprimand or other appropriate
sanction should be imposed to protect the integrity of the admissions
process.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN”
Here is an email exchange from 2008 between Citizen Wells and Andy Martin.
From: Citizen Wells
To: Andy Martin
Sun, Sep 21, 2008 7:37 PM
What was the outcome of your March 13, 2007 complaint to the Illinois Supreme Court
regarding Obama’s application?
Thanks.
Wells
From: Andy Martin
To: Citizen Wells
Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Nothing. Obama had already resigned as a lawyer and so they had no jurisdiction over him.
From: Citizen Wells
To: Andy Martin
Sep 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Thanks for the rapid response.
However, is there not a penalty for supplying false information?
Wells
From: Andy Martin
To: Citizen Wells
Sep 21, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Not if they have lost jurisdiction over the individual. They can’t punish someone who has resigned, which is why so many corrupt lawyers in Illinois resign before they are disbarred.

9 Attorney Generals Detail 21 Blatant Obama Law Violations... Media Ignores

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

88 U.S. 162

Minor v. Happersett


Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens 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 [p168] 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judicial history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed. Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has been held that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in many of the States (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmit inheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien, and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it been insisted that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to citizenship has been in all cases assumed. The only question has been whether, in the particular case under consideration, she had availed herself of the right.
In the legislative department of the government similar [p170] proof will be found. Thus, in the pre-emption laws, [n12] a widow, "being a citizen of the United States," is allowed to make settlement on the public lands and purchase upon the terms specified, and women, "being citizens of the United States," are permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the homestead law. [n13]
Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.
If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.
It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of [p171] the States, and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. [n14] Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the States, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the State. [n15] Each State must appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President. [n16] The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. [n17] It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts.
The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen.
It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. [p172] But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.
When the Federal Constitution was adopted, all the States, with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had constitutions of their own. These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions we find that in no State were all citizens permitted to vote. Each State determined for itself who should have that power. Thus, in New Hampshire, "every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town privileges, and places unincorporated in the State, of twentyone years of age and upwards, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request," were its voters; in Massachusetts "every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds;" in Rhode Island "such as are admitted free of the company and society" of the colony; in Connecticut such persons as had "maturity in years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation, and forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate," if so certified by the selectmen; in New York "every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the State for six months immediately preceding the day of election . . . if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds within the county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State;" in New Jersey "all inhabitants . . . of full age who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation-money, clear estate in the same, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election;" in Pennsylvania "every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State two years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election;" in [p173] Delaware and Virginia "as exercised by law at present;" in Maryland "all freemen above twenty-one years of age having a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all freemen having property in the State above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election;" in North Carolina, for senators, "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land for six months next before and at the day of election," and for members of the house of commons "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants in any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes;" in South Carolina "every free white man of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the State and having resided therein two years previous to the day of election, and who hath a freehold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least six months before such election, or (not having such freehold or town lot), hath been a resident within the election district in which he offers to give his vote six months before said election, and hath paid a tax the preceding year of three shillings sterling towards the support of the government;" and in Georgia such "citizens and inhabitants of the State as shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years, and shall have paid tax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided six months within the county."
In this condition of the law in respect to suffrage in the several States it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared.
[p174] But if further proof is necessary to show that no such change was intended, it can easily be found both in and out of the Constitution. By Article 4, section 2, it is provided that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." If suffrage is necessarily a part of citizenship, then the citizens of each State must be entitled to vote in the several States precisely as their citizens are. This is more than asserting that they may change their residence and become citizens of the State and thus be voters. It goes to the extent of insisting that while retaining their original citizenship they may vote in any State. This, we think, has never been claimed. And again, by the very terms of the amendment we have been considering (the fourteenth), "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in the rebellion, or other crimes, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." Why this, if it was not in the power of the legislature to deny the right of suffrage to some male inhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of the absolute rights of citizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation to male inhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, "persons." They are counted in the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to be made, but if they were necessarily voters because of their citizenship unless clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearly, no such form of words would have been [p175] selected to express the idea here indicated if suffrage was the absolute right of all citizens.
And still again, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, as follows: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The fourteenth amendment had already provided that no State should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race, &c.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?
It is true that the United States guarantees to every State a republican form of government. [n18] It is also true that no State can pass a bill of attainder, [n19] and that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [n20] All these several provisions of the Constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts of the instrument, and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.
The guaranty is of a republican form of government. No particular government is designated as republican, neither is the exact form to be guaranteed, in any manner especially designated. Here, as in other parts of the instrument, we are compelled to resort elsewhere to ascertain what was intended.
The guaranty necessarily implies a duty on the part of the States themselves to provide such a government. All the States had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In all the people participated to some extent, through their representatives elected in the manner specially provided.[p176] These governments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is, therefore, to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the States to provide. Thus we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form, within the meaning of that term as employed in the Constitution.
As has been seen, all the citizens of the States were not invested with the right of suffrage. In all, save perhaps New Jersey, this right was only bestowed upon men and not upon all of them. Under these circumstances it is certainly now too late to contend that a government is not republican, within the meaning of this guaranty in the Constitution, because women are not made voters.
The same may be said of the other provisions just quoted.Women were excluded from suffrage in nearly all the States by the express provision of their constitutions and laws. If that had been equivalent to a bill of attainder, certainly its abrogation would not have been left to implication. Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change. So also of the amendment which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, adopted as it was as early as 1791. If suffrage was intended to be included within its obligations, language better adapted to express that intent would most certainly have been employed. The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has it can only be deprived of it by due process of law, but in order to claim protection he must first show that he has the right.
But we have already sufficiently considered the proof found upon the inside of the Constitution. That upon the outside is equally effective.
The Constitution was submitted to the States for adoption in 1787, and was ratified by nine States in 1788, and finally by the thirteen original States in 1790. Vermont was the first new State admitted to the Union, and it came in under a constitution which conferred the right of suffrage only upon men of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided [p177] in the State for the space of one whole year next before the election, and who were of quiet and peaceable behavior. This was in 1791. The next year, 1792, Kentucky followed with a constitution confining the right of suffrage to free male citizens of the age of twenty-one years who had resided in the State two years or in the county in which they offered to vote one year next before the election. Then followed Tennessee, in 1796, with voters of freemen of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, possessing a freehold in the county wherein they may vote, and being inhabitants of the State or freemen being inhabitants of any one county in the State six months immediately preceding the day of election. But we need not particularize further. No new State has ever been admitted to the Union which has conferred the right of suffrage upon women, and this has never been considered a valid objection to her admission. On the contrary, as is claimed in the argument, the right of suffrage was withdrawn from women as early as 1807 in the State of New Jersey, without any attempt to obtain the interference of the United States to prevent it. Since then the governments of the insurgent States have been reorganized under a requirement that before their representatives could be admitted to seats in Congress they must have adopted new constitutions, republican in form. In no one of these constitutions was suffrage conferred upon women, and yet the States have all been restored to their original position as States in the Union.
Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.
Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If [p178] uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.
We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.
1. See other sections, infra, p. 174.
2. Article 2, § 18.
3. Preamble, 1 Stat. at Large, 10.
4. Declaration of Independence, Ib. 1.
5. Articles of Confederation, § 3, 1 Stat. at Large, 4.
6. Article 2, § 1.
7. Article 1, § 8.
8. 1 Stat. at Large, 103.
9. 10 Id. 604.
10. 2 Id. 293.
11. 10 Stat. at Large, 604.
12. 5 Stat. at Large, 455, § 10.
13. 12 Id. 392.
14. Constitution, Article 1, § 2.
15. Ib. Article 1, § 3.
16. Ib. Article 2, § 2.
17. Ib. Article 1, § 4.
18. Constitution, Article 4, § 4.
19. Ib. Article 1, § 10.
20. Ib. Amendment 5.