Saturday, October 11, 2014

ISIS butchers leave 'roads lined with decapitated police and soldiers': Battle for Baghdad looms as thousands answer Iraqi government's call to arms and jihadists bear down on capital

ISIS butchers leave 'roads lined with decapitated police and soldiers': Battle for Baghdad looms as thousands answer Iraqi government's call to arms and jihadists bear down on capital

  • U.S. today changed tone on intervention; President Obama said: 'I don't rule out anything... Iraq will need more help'
  • Crucial vote to grant emergency powers was delayed because MPs did not turn up, leaving Iraqi government paralysed
  • Disruption in Iraq could add 2p to the price of a litre of petrol within a fortnight as ISIS insurgents take key oil fields
  • Kurdish forces are in full control of Iraq's oil city of Kirkuk after the federal army abandoned their posts
  • Iran has sent special forces and a unit of elite troops to Iraq to assist the Iraqi government halt the advance
  • Iraqi air force is bombing insurgent positions in and around Mosul - 1.3million citizens still remain in the city
  • Middle East experts raised the prospect of Iraq being carved into three - Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite - by the conflict

The full horror of the jihadists’ savage victories in Iraq emerged yesterday as witnesses told of streets lined with decapitated soldiers and policemen.
Blood-soaked bodies and blazing vehicles were left in the wake of the Al Qaeda-inspired ISIS fanatics as they pushed the frontline towards Baghdad.
They boasted about their triumphs in a propaganda video depicting appalling scenes including a businessman being dragged from his car and executed at the roadside with a pistol to the back of his head. The extent of the carnage came as:
  • Images from captured cities such as Mosul and Tikrit showed deserted streets, burnt out vehicles and discarded uniforms left by government troops fleeing the brutal fanatics;
  • ISIS leaders urged their bloodthirsty followers to continue their march and warned that battle would rage in Baghdad and in the holy city of Karbala;
  • Thousands of residents in the capital answered a call to arms to repel the invaders amid fears the government’s own troops were not up to the job;
  • Aid groups warned of a new refugee crisis after half a million terrified Iraqis left their homes to escape the jihadists.
Scroll down for videos
The body an Iraqi policeman is shown in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra. Witnesses have reported horrible punishments being meted out to those who oppose the ISIS inusrgents
The body an Iraqi policeman is shown in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra. Witnesses have reported horrible punishments being meted out to those who oppose the ISIS inusrgents

A member of the Iraqi security forces lies dead beside a vehicle in Tikrit, which was overrun by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) on Wednesday
A member of the Iraqi security forces lies dead beside a vehicle in Tikrit, which was overrun by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) on Wednesday

The battle to save Iraq's capital from the advancing Al Qaeda-inspired militants is underway today after the government begged Iraqis to sign up and fight
The battle to save Iraq's capital from the advancing Al Qaeda-inspired militants is underway today after the government begged Iraqis to sign up and fight


Thousands of men of all ages turned up today at an army recruiting center in the city to volunteer for military service in a bid to stop the Baghdad falling to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Thousands of men of all ages turned up today at an army recruiting center in the city to volunteer for military service in a bid to stop the Baghdad falling to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Volunteers who have joined the Iraqi army to fight against the predominantly Sunni militants,  travel in an army truck, in Baghdad
Volunteers who have joined the Iraqi army to fight against the predominantly Sunni militants, travel in an army truck, in Baghdad

An Iraqi soldier flashes a V for victory sign while Iraqi men gather outside of the main army recruiting center to volunteer for military service
Iraqi men gather outside of the main army recruiting center to volunteer for military service
An Iraqi soldier flashes a V for victory sign (left) while Iraqi men gather outside of the main army recruiting center to volunteer for military service (right)

A video uploaded on the Iraqi Ministry of Defence website shows Iraqi forces launching air strikes on the al-Ghazlani military camp in the northern city of Mosul said to be occupied by jihadist militants
A video uploaded on the Iraqi Ministry of Defence website shows Iraqi forces launching air strikes on the al-Ghazlani military camp in the northern city of Mosul said to be occupied by jihadist militants
The Iraqi air force are now bombing insurgent positions in and around Mosul - although 500,000 residents have fled, 1.3 million citizens remain in the city
The Iraqi air force are now bombing insurgent positions in and around Mosul - although 500,000 residents have fled, 1.3 million citizens remain in the city
In the swathe of captured territory across northern Iraq, ISIS declared hardline Sharia law, publishing rules ordering women not to go outside ‘unless strictly necessary’, banning alcohol and smoking, and forcing all residents to attend mosques five times a day. BBC correspondent Paul Wood said one woman from Mosul, Iraq’s second city, had spoken of seeing a ‘row of decapitated soldiers and policemen’.
The refugee woman told how the victims’ heads were placed in rows – a trademark, trophy-style execution favoured by ISIS militants.
The fanatics captured Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s birthplace, by overrunning an army base and rounding up hundreds of soldiers and police. Dozens of members of a police special forces battalion were paraded on the back of a truck in the city.
As the balaclava-clad militants took Mosul and Tikrit, thousands of Baghdad’s residents young and old queued at recruiting stations to form a ‘Dad’s army’ to defend the capital.
Trucks carrying volunteers in uniform rumbled towards the frontlines to defend the city, with many chanting slogans against the ISIS militants.
Meanwhile the Iraqi air force carried out at least four bombing raids on insurgent positions in and around Mosul. State television showed targets exploding in black clouds.
Britons working in Baghdad’s Green Zone where most of the foreign embassies are based were on high alert. The lightning advance of ISIS has caused alarm in London, Washington and across the Middle East.
Regional tensions: How religious and military divides shape the Middle East
Regional tensions: How religious and military divides shape the Middle East
Despite vastly outnumbering the jihadists, government troops have melted away in the face of the insurgents, allowing them to capture two helicopters, 15 tanks, weapons and several armoured cars that used belonging to the American military. They also seized £350million-worth of dinars by robbing a bank in Mosul.
According to bitter Iraqi footsoldiers, their commanders slipped away in the night rather than mount a defence of the city.
One said: ‘Our leaders betrayed us. The commanders left the military behind. When we woke up, all the leaders had left.’
Last night Barack Obama said America would help with ‘short-term immediate actions… militarily’ to push back the insurgents, but ruled out sending troops.
Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain would not get involved militarily because Iraq was now a democracy.
Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed: ‘We are not going to allow this to carry on, regardless of the price. We are getting ready. We are organising.’
As the situation spiralled out of control, even Iran was said to have deployed two battalions from its Revolutionary Guard to help the Iraqi government retake Tikrit.
The development was likely to enrage Washington, which has been steadfast in its determination for Baghdad not to cosy up to Tehran.
It also emerged that members of Saddam’s old guard were joining the insurrection. Fighters loyal to his disbanded Baath Party were said to be actively supporting the rebels. ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham but has also been referenced as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
 
Advances: In this unverified footage, broadcast today, armed men appearing to be militants gestures aggressively towards the camera
Advances: In this unverified footage, broadcast today, armed men appearing to be militants gestures aggressively towards the camera

Threatening: Men pose with automatic rifles and a stationary machine gun, with the ISIS flag propped up behind them
Threatening: Men pose with automatic rifles and a stationary machine gun, with the ISIS flag propped up behind them




An explosion as militants of ISIS allegedly seize an Iraqi army checkpoint in the northern Iraqi province of Salahuddin
An explosion as militants of ISIS allegedly seize an Iraqi army checkpoint in the northern Iraqi province of Salahuddin
ISIS take position on a Mosul street.  Today Iraqi air force bombed insurgent positions in and around the northern city
ISIS take position on a Mosul street. Today Iraqi air force bombed insurgent positions in and around the northern city


ISIS fire heavy machine guns during fighting in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra - today the Islamic State has issued a triumphalist statement declaring that it would start implementing its strict version of Shariah law in Mosul and other regions it had overrun
ISIS fire heavy machine guns during fighting in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra - today the Islamic State has issued a triumphalist statement declaring that it would start implementing its strict version of Shariah law in Mosul and other regions it had overrun


Dozens of members of a police special forces battalion were paraded before a crowd in the Iraqi city of Tikrit on Thursday after they were captured by fighters who overran their base. Militants have set up military councils to run the towns they captured, residents said
Dozens of members of a police special forces battalion were paraded before a crowd in the Iraqi city of Tikrit on Thursday after they were captured by fighters who overran their base. Militants have set up military councils to run the towns they captured, residents said





FINALLY THE KURDS GET THEIR JERUSALEM: HOW ISIS INVASION IS REDRAWING THE MAP OF IRAQ

Iraqi Kurds seized control of the northern oil city of Kirkuk today as the central government's army abandoned its posts in a rapid collapse that has lost it control of the north.
Peshmerga fighters (pictured below), the security forces of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish north, swept into Kirkuk after the army abandoned its posts there, a peshmerga spokesman said.

Warlike: The Kurdish Peshmerga armed forces are seen today in Kirkuk
'The whole of Kirkuk has fallen into the hands of peshmerga,' said Jabbar Yawar.
'No Iraqi army remains in Kirkuk now.'
Kurds have long dreamed of taking Kirkuk, a city with huge oil reserves just outside their autonomous region, which they regard as their historical capital.
Hardened fighters: The Peshmerga force is thought to be capable of crushing ISIS should it wish
The swift move by their highly organized security forces demonstrates how this week's sudden advance by fighters of the Al Qaeda offshoot Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has redrawn Iraq's map.
Kurds have been determined to return to Kirkuk after they were driven from the oil-rich city under Saddam Hussein's 'Arabisation' campaign - the settlement of tens of thousands of Arabs in Kirkuk during his three decades in power
The Iraqi government has control over the oil fields on the city's western fringe.
In May 2013, Kurdish fighters took up positions on the outskirts of Kirkuk after Iraqi security forces were redeployed to deal with Sunni militants elsewhere.
Today they made the final push after the army fled before an Islamist offensive nearby.

Its insurgency is the biggest threat to Iraq since US troops withdrew in 2011.
ISIS commanders issued chilling warnings to any police officers or soldiers to ‘repent or be killed’.
In a sinister video, the extremists urged followers to ‘march to Baghdad – we have a score to settle’. They also pledged to take the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf.
‘Continue your march as the battle is not yet raging,’ a voice said to be that of ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani says. ‘It will rage in Baghdad and Karbala. So be ready for it. Put on your belts and get ready.’
But taking Baghdad would be much tougher for ISIS than the towns where they have triumphed so far. The United Nations Security Council met behind closed doors last night to discuss the crisis.
Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, speaking in London, insisted the government had halted the rebel advance and even claimed insurgents were ‘on the run’.
But at Baiji, near Kirkuk, insurgents surrounded Iraq’s largest refinery. And the fighters have reached Samarra, 70 miles north of Baghdad.
About a quarter of Mosul’s two million residents have fled. The flood of terrified families escaping the fighting there was described as ‘one of the largest and swiftest mass movements of people in the world in recent memory’. Many have headed east into the autonomous region of Kurdistan.
Aid groups fear a new refugee crisis. Neighbouring countries already struggling to look after 2.8million refugees from the Syrian civil war now face the prospect of a new influx of displaced people desperately seeking a safe haven.
Meanwhile Iraqi Kurds seized control of the major northern oil city of Kirkuk today after the central government's army abandoned its posts.The Kurds - a semi-autonomous ethnic group based in the north - have their own 250,000-strong military, but have not used them to engage ISIS.
Footage emerged yesterday evening from TIkrit, which appears to show a long line of captured men and boys, being forcibly marched down a highway in the city.
The minute-long video, uploaded to YouTube, showed a snaking column of men stretching the entire visible length of the stretch of road. A voice captured by the recording describes a great Islamic 'family' and later an 'army', suggesting a possible intention to recruit the captives.
Most of the men and boys have both hands on their heads, while others - some wearing head coverings and some bare-faced - move up and down the column encouraging the march.

The startling developments raise the spectre of Iraq being carved up and divided into several states. Respected commentators have raised the prospect that, with Kurdish forces holding the north, the Sunni ISIS militants taking parts of the north and west, leaving the central and south-eastern to the Shiite population who currently run the government and military.
Yesterday the Iraqi Ambassador to Washington warned the ‘integrity of Iraq is in question’, while Dr Ayad Allawi, a former prime minister of Iraq, added that a break-up was ‘not impossible’.
The governor of Mosul, who escaped the city and is now in Erbil in the Kurdish north, said that Iraq must be divided as centralisation had 'failed'.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Atheel al-Nujaifi said prime minister Nouri al-Maliki 'didn't devolve authority to us before, but now we must do it. Now we are saying his centralisation policies have failed,' Mr Nujaifi said.
Repercussions from the conflict are also being felt in global oil markets, where prices shot to a three-month high. The RAC said disruption could add more than 2p to the price of a litre of petrol.
The price of Brent crude rose $2 to a three-month high of more than $112 on fears about supply from the second-biggest producer in the Opec oil cartel.
The RAC said: ‘The worsening situation in Iraq is causing a knee-jerk reaction in the global fuel market with wholesale prices going up one pence over Wednesday and Thursday.’
This was likely to push the pump price of both petrol and diesel up by 2p per litre in the short term, the RAC said, ‘and this could well go much further’.
Iraq has insisted sectarian violence will not spread to the south, from which the vast majority of oil output comes.
 
 


Less than 24 hours later the oil-rich city of Tikrit was captured by the militants, who then turned their attentions to the capital as it pushes ahead with its aim to overthrow the western-backed government as part of its goal to create an Islamic emirate spanning both sides of the Iraq-Syria border
Less than 24 hours later the oil-rich city of Tikrit was captured by the militants, who then turned their attentions to the capital as it pushes ahead with its aim to overthrow the western-backed government as part of its goal to create an Islamic emirate spanning both sides of the Iraq-Syria border
Kurdistan's Peshmerga soldiers secure an area in Kirkuk city - the move was a victory for them as they have fought over the land for years
Kurdistan's Peshmerga soldiers secure an area in Kirkuk city - the move was a victory for them as they have fought over the land for years
Kurdish security forces deploy outside of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. Kurds have long dreamed of taking Kirkuk, a city with huge oil reserves just outside their autonomous region, which they regard as their historical capital
Kurdish security forces deploy outside of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. Kurds have long dreamed of taking Kirkuk, a city with huge oil reserves just outside their autonomous region, which they regard as their historical capital



Militants on Al-Sharqat base north of Tikrit, Iraq. Yesterday ISIS took over Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit
Militants on Al-Sharqat base north of Tikrit, Iraq. Yesterday ISIS took over Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit
Smoke billows from the site of a car bomb explosion in Khadiyah, northern Baghdad. So far government forces have stalled the militants' remarkably rapid advance near Samarra, a city just 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad
Smoke billows from the site of a car bomb explosion in Khadiyah, northern Baghdad. So far government forces have stalled the militants' remarkably rapid advance near Samarra, a city just 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad

Kurdish Iraqi Peshmerga forces deploy their troops and armoured vehicles on the outskirts of the multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk, only 1 kilometre away from areas controlled by Sunni Muslim Jihadists
Kurdish Iraqi Peshmerga forces deploy their troops and armoured vehicles on the outskirts of the multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk, only 1 kilometre away from areas controlled by Sunni Muslim Jihadists

Kurdish Peshmerga forces deploy their troops on the outskirts of the multi-ethnic Iraqi city of Kirkuk
Kurdish Iraqi Peshmerga forces deploy their troops and armoured vehicles on the outskirts of the multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk
Kurds have been determined to return to Kirkuk after they were driven from the oil-rich city under Saddam Hussein's programme of 'Arabisation'


After the capture of Mosul, the Islamic State issued a triumphalist statement declaring that it would implement its strict version of Shariah law in Mosul and other regions it had overrun.
Its laws state that women should stay in their homes for modesty reasons, command residents to attend prayers five times a day, and warned thieves that they would have their hands cut off.
It came as Kurdish forces took full control of Iraq's oil-rich city of Kirkuk after the federal army abandoned its bases there.
Peshmerga fighters, the security forces of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish north, swept into Kirkuk after the army abandoned its posts there, a peshmerga spokesman said.
'The whole of Kirkuk has fallen into the hands of peshmerga. No Iraqi army remains in Kirkuk now', said Jabbar Yawar.
Kurds have long dreamed of controlling Kirkuk, a city with huge oil reserves just outside their autonomous region, which they regard as their historical capital.
The swift move by their highly organised security forces demonstrates how this week's sudden advance by ISIS fighters has redrawn Iraq's map.
Insurgents surrounded Iraq's largest refinery in the northern town of Baiji this afternoon - they first moved in late on Tuesday, closing in on the refinery, but later withdrew to the surrounding villages after reaching a deal with local tribal chiefs.
A White House spokesman this evening said that they believed the Iraqi government were in control of the facility, but had no further details.
The man is led to his death. ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani today promised that the battle would 'rage' on Baghdad and Karbala, a city southwest of the capital. So far government forces have stalled the militants' remarkably rapid advance near Samarra, a city just 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad
The man is led to his death. ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani today promised that the battle would 'rage' on Baghdad and Karbala, a city southwest of the capital. So far government forces have stalled the militants' remarkably rapid advance near Samarra, a city just 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad

A man is executed in a propaganda video released this morning by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as the Al Qaeda-inspired militants continue their march towards Baghdad
A man is executed in a propaganda video released this morning by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as the Al Qaeda-inspired militants continue their march towards Baghdad
An abandoned Iraqi security forces vehicle is pictured on a road in Tikrit.  There were no reliable estimates of casualties or the number of insurgents involved, though several hundred gunmen were in Tikrit and more were fighting on the outskirts, said Mizhar Fleih, the deputy head of the municipal council of nearby Samarra
An abandoned Iraqi security forces vehicle is pictured on a road in Tikrit. There were no reliable estimates of casualties or the number of insurgents involved, though several hundred gunmen were in Tikrit and more were fighting on the outskirts, said Mizhar Fleih, the deputy head of the municipal council of nearby Samarra
Kurdish peshmerga forces take control of Toz Khormato after ISIS take control of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul,  and attacked the city of Kirkuk
Kurdish peshmerga forces take control of Toz Khormato after ISIS take control of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, and attacked the city of Kirkuk






The remains of a burnt out Iraqi army vehicles are seen at the Kukjali Iraqi Army checkpoint, some 10km of east of the northern city of Mosul
The remains of a burnt out Iraqi army vehicles are seen at the Kukjali Iraqi Army checkpoint, some 10km of east of the northern city of Mosul

Burnt vehicles belonging to Iraqi security forces are pictured at a checkpoint in east Mosul, two days after radical Sunni Muslim insurgents seized control of the city
Burnt vehicles belonging to Iraqi security forces are pictured at a checkpoint in east Mosul, two days after radical Sunni Muslim insurgents seized control of the city

 
In the midst of the crisis, Iraq's parliament failed to declare a nationwide state of emergency after not enough MPs turned up for a vote.
Opposition politicians representing Sunni and Kurdish populations boycotted parliament because the oppose a motion to give extraordinary powers to Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Turkey is negotiating for the release of 80 nationals held by ISIS in Mosul and cannot confirm reports that some of them have been freed, government officials said today.
The pro-government Turkish newspaper Yeni Safak reported that the hostages, who include diplomatic staff, children and special forces soldiers, had been released to the Iraqi governor of Mosul and would be brought to Turkey tonight.
The capture of Mosul - along with the fall of Tikrit and the militants' earlier seizure of the city of Fallujah and parts of Ramadi, the capital of western Anbar province - has undone hard-fought gains against insurgents in the years following the invasion by U.S.-led forces.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon strongly condemned the abductions and the seizure of Iraqi territory by the militants, urging 'the international community to unite in showing solidarity with Iraq as it confronts this serious security challenge.'
'Terrorism must not be allowed to succeed in undoing the path towards democracy in Iraq,' he added.


Mosul, the capital of Ninevah province, and the neighboring Sunni-dominated province of Anbar share a long and porous border with Syria, where the Islamic State is also active.
Without assigning direct blame, al-Maliki said a 'conspiracy' led to the massive security failure that allowed militants to capture Mosul, and said members of the security forces who fled rather than stand up to the militants should be punished.
'We are working to solve the situation,' al-Maliki said. 'We are regrouping the armed forces that are in charge of clearing Ninevah from those terrorists.'
Iranian airlines cancelled all flights between Tehran and Baghdad due to security concerns, and the Islamic Republic has intensified security measures along its borders, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported.
Shiite Iran, a major regional power, has strong ties with Iraq's government. Some 17,000 Iranian pilgrims are in Iraq at any given time, according to IRNA, which cited the director of Iran's Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization.
Tikrit residents said the militant group overran several police stations in the Sunni-dominated city.
Two Iraqi security officials confirmed that the city, 80 miles north of Baghdad and the capital of Salahuddin province, was under ISIS's control and that the provincial governor was missing. 
The major oil refinery in Baiji, located between Mosul and Tikrit, remained in government control, the officials said. There were clashes and gunmen tried to take the town but were repelled in a rare success for Iraqi government forces protecting an important facility, the officials said. 
The International Organisation for Migration estimated that 500,000 people fled the Mosul area, with some seeking safety in the Ninevah countryside or the nearby semi-autonomous Kurdish region.
Getting into the latter has become more difficult, however, with migrants without family members already in the enclave needing to secure permission from Kurdish authorities, according to the IOM.
An Iraqi child poses for a photograph at a camp in Aski kalak, Kurdistan
Displaced: The girl is one of an estimated 500,000 fleeing the violence
Refugees: The girls above were pictured today in a refugee camp hastily established in Kurdistan. They are just two of the 500,000 fleeing the fighting

Surviving: This Iraqi family smile for the camera, despite their dire plight having fled Mosul
Getting by: These two children play in the dirt outside refugee tents
Smiling through the suffering: An Iraqi family (left) and two children (right) smile and play in the dusty camp - despite having been forced from their homes just days ago

Construction works to set up camps for the people fleeing Mosul after the city was seized by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant
Construction works to set up camps for the people fleeing Mosul after the city was seized by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant



The International Organization for Migration estimated that 500,000 people fled the Mosul area, with some seeking safety in the Ninevah countryside or the nearby semiautonomous Kurdish region
The International Organization for Migration estimated that 500,000 people fled the Mosul area, with some seeking safety in the Ninevah countryside or the nearby semiautonomous Kurdish region
Iraqis who fled the violence in Mosul stand in a queue at a checkpoint in Erbil, Kurdistan region
Iraqis who fled the violence in Mosul stand in a queue at a checkpoint in Erbil, Kurdistan region


Iraqi refugees from Mosul arrive at Khazir refugee camp outside Irbil, 217 miles (350 kilometres) north of Baghdad, Iraq
Iraqi refugees from Mosul arrive at Khazir refugee camp outside Irbil, 217 miles (350 kilometres) north of Baghdad, Iraq
Iraqi refugees from Mosul arrive at Khazir refugee camp outside Irbil, 217 miles (350 kilometres) north of Baghdad
Thousands of people who fled Iraq's second city of Mosul after it was overrun by jihadists wait in the blistering heat, hoping to enter the safety of the nearby Kurdish region and furious at Baghdad's failure to help them
Thousands of people who fled Iraq's second city of Mosul after it was overrun by jihadists wait in the blistering heat, hoping to enter the safety of the nearby Kurdish region and furious at Baghdad's failure to help them
Iraqi children fleeing violence in the northern Nineveh province sleep in a tent at a temporary camp
Iraqi children fleeing violence in the northern Nineveh province sleep in a tent at a temporary camp

An Iraqi Kurdish security guard waits to check the ID cards of Iraqi families fleeing violence in the northern Nineveh province as they gather at a Kurdish checkpoint in Aski Kalak, 40km west of Arbil
An Iraqi Kurdish security guard waits to check the ID cards of Iraqi families fleeing violence in the northern Nineveh province as they gather at a Kurdish checkpoint in Aski Kalak, 40km west of Arbil
Mourners carry the coffin of a victim killed by a suicide bomber who blew himself up inside a tent filled with mourners in Baghdad, during a funeral in Najaf, south of Baghdad
Mourners carry the coffin of a victim killed by a suicide bomber who blew himself up inside a tent filled with mourners in Baghdad, during a funeral in Najaf, south of Baghdad

The suicide bomber blew himself up inside a tent filled with mourners in a predominantly Sunni district of Baghdad, killing at least 16 people, police and medical sources have said
The suicide bomber blew himself up inside a tent filled with mourners in a predominantly Sunni district of Baghdad, killing at least 16 people, police and medical sources have said

ABU DUA: IMPRISONED BY THE US, THE MAN WHO HATES THE WEST MORE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN  AND IS THE DRIVING FORCE BY ISIS




Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, (seen here when he was a prisoner and more recently) is the shadowy head of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, (seen here when he was a prisoner and more recently) is the shadowy head of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the shadowy leader of thousands of Islamist fighters in Syria and Iraq, many of them Westerners, appears to be surpassing Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri as the world’s most influential jihadist.
'For the last 10 years or more, [Zawahri] has been holed up in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area and hasn’t really done very much more than issue a few statements and videos,' said Richard Barrett, a former counterterrorism chief at MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence service.
'Whereas Baghdadi has done an amazing amount – he has captured cities, he has mobilized huge amounts of people, he is killing ruthlessly throughout Iraq and Syria.
'If you were a guy who wanted action, you would go with Baghdadi,' said Barrett. noting the ISIS leader’s challenge to Zawahri was 'a really interesting development.'
'Where that goes will determine a lot about how terrorism is [carried out],' Barrett said.
The ISIS leader, who was born in 1971 in Baghdad, is touted as a battlefield commander and tactician, a crucial distinction compared with Zawahri.
Baghdadi, who has a degrees in Islamic studies, apparently joined the insurgency that erupted in Iraq soon after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
He was taken as a prisoner of the Americans in Camp Bucca between 2005 and 2007 - it was here that one of the only two photos know to be in existence was taken of him.
He is known as 'The Ghost' to members of the pro-Assad Lebanese Shi-ite militia Hizballah.
Baghdadi taken as a prisoner of the Americans in Camp Bucca between 2005 and 2007 (file photo)
Baghdadi taken as a prisoner of the Americans in Camp Bucca between 2005 and 2007 (file photo)

'Only a few people know the face of Baghdadi,' Sheik Ahmad, the Hizballah official in charge of investigating ISIS in Syria, told TIME last year.
The secretive Baghdadi talks with a scarf covering his face even when dealing with close allies, according to militants who worked with him in Iraq.
He addresses his ISIS followers through audio recordings posted to the internet, rather than in public places.

In October 2005, American forces said they believed they had killed him in a strike on the Iraq- Syria border.

But that appears to have been incorrect, as he took the reins of what was then known as the Islamic State of Iraq in May 2010 after two of its chiefs were killed in a U.S.-Iraqi raid. Since then, details about him have slowly trickled out.
In October 2011, the U.S. Treasury designated him as a 'terrorist' in a notice that said he was born in the Iraqi city of Samarra in 1971.
And earlier this year, Iraq released a picture they said was of Baghdadi, the first from an official source, depicting a balding, bearded man in a suit and tie.
Lt. Gen. Abdel-Amir al-Zaidi, who heads a northern security command centre, says his forces believe Baghdadi is hiding in Iraq’s Diyala province, but other officials contest this.
He is a renegade within al-Qaeda and it was his maverick streak that eventually led its central command to sever ties, deepening a rivalry between his organization and the global terror network
Zawahri has urged ISIS to focus on Iraq and leave Syria to Nusra, but Baghdadi and his fighters have openly defied the Al-Qaeda chief and, indeed, have fought not only Assad, but also Nusra and other rebel groups.
He is 'more violent, more virulent, more anti-American [than Osama Bin Laden]'  a senior U.S. intelligence official told the Washington Post.





Marauding ISIS militia beheading their way to Baghdad: How jihadist group so extreme even al-Qaeda has distanced itself threatens to take Iraq three years after America left

The Islamist militia is so ruthless and extreme that even al-Qaeda has cut ties and distances itself from them.
The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Isis), used to be part of the international terror network, but was cast out in February this year in light of its violent behaviour towards rival jihadist groups.
It is famed - and feared - for spreading hardline Islamic law to the areas it subdues. Transgressors are sentenced to death and swiftly executed in public, their bodies left to decay in the streets.


This treatment has even been doled out against other jihadist leaders, who have been assassinated in a brutal struggle over strategy in the Middle East. Young jihadists are increasingly drawn to Isis over less extreme groups - particularly in the light of their rapid military progress through Iraq.
In the past days the group has overrun the northern city of Mosul, and today also took Tikrit, the hometown of executed Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein.
The Islamist militia is so ruthless and extreme that even al-Qaeda has cut ties and distances itself from them
The Islamist militia is so ruthless and extreme that even al-Qaeda has cut ties and distances itself from them

In February, the leader of al-Qaeda issued a statement dissociating itself from Isis, which it accused of 'forbidden bloodshed' directed at fellow fighters.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's chief, cut ties after Isis attempted to bolster its strength by merging with other rebels in Syria.
He said: 'We weren't informed about its creation, nor counselled. Nor are we satisfied with it: rather we ordered it to stop... Nor is al–Qaeda responsible for its actions and behaviour.'
The organisation is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has a U.S. bounty of $10million on his head, second only to al-Zawahiri.
The ISIS leader, who was born in 1971 in Baghdad, is touted as a battlefield commander and tactician.
Baghdadi, who has a degree in Islamic studies, apparently joined the insurgency that erupted in Iraq soon after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
He was taken as a prisoner of the Americans in Camp Bucca between 2005 and 2007 - it was here that one of the only two photos know to be in existence was taken of him.
He is known as 'The Ghost' to members of the pro-Assad Lebanese Shi-ite militia Hizballah.
The secretive Baghdadi talks with a scarf covering his face even when dealing with close allies, according to militants who worked with him in Iraq.
He addresses his ISIS followers through audio recordings posted to the internet, rather than in public places.
Military sources have reported his death on numerous occasions in the past years, but the fighter always seems to reappear. This has led to speculation that al-Baghdadi is in fact a name used jointly by several commanders.
Some estimates claim Isis group has in excess of 10,000 fighting men in its ranks. Many of its fighters are thought to be radicalised Western Muslims who have poured in from Europe and North American to join the fighting in Syria and elsewhere.
The group, which controls large areas of land in Syria, is thought to be pouring resources and money from those areas into its burgeoning Iraqi campaign, which has seen it tear through the northern regions on the country.
Tensions: The Isis fighters are from the Sunni branch of Islam - as was Saddam Hussein - in contrast to the current Shia government
Tensions: The Isis fighters are from the Sunni branch of Islam - as was Saddam Hussein - in contrast to the current Shia government

Its military progress, largely unhindered by Iraq's own security forces, have given it control over several highly valuable oil fields, which leaders will hope to exploit to strengthen their hand.
The situation has alarmed officials in Turkey, who called an emergency meeting of NATO ambassadors after 80 of its citizens were taken hostage by Isis.
'Turkey briefed the other allies on the situation in (the Iraqi city of) Mosul and the hostage-taking of Turkish citizens, including the consul general,' a NATO official said.
He said the meeting was held for informational purposes and not under Article 4 of NATO's founding treaty, which permits a member of the 28-nation alliance to ask for consultations with other allies when it feels its security is threatened.
Turks seized included 48 from the consulate in Mosul - including the consul-general and three children. Separately, 28 truck drivers who were delivering diesel to a power plant were captured on Monday.

Meanwhile, Baghdad residents were stockpiling food, fuel and weaponry in anticipation of an attack on the capital in the coming days.
Prime Minister Maliki has previously encouraged ordinary Iraqis to take up arms against the advancing soldiers of Isis, especially in light of claims that members of the police and military are intentionally defecting.
Senior sources in the Iraqi government have said that they have a plan to take back Mosul, but were unclear on the details.
Isis is pushing to expand its territory, which currently straddles the border between Syria and Iraq, and includes land extremely close to the Turkish border.
The group's centre of power is Raqqa, a city in northern Syria, which is being run under the regime's oppressive and violent code.
Raqqa was heavily contested throughout the Syrian conflict, and was held by several rebel groups until Isis threw out all other contenders in 2013.
Recently Isis leaders imposed punitive rules on the city's Christian population, demanding that they pay a levy of gold for 'protection' else face being killed on the streets for their faith.
Horrifying images have also emerged from the cities of crucifixions being used to punish men who attacked Isis fighters.
Seven men were sentenced to death after a grenade was thrown at a soldier near a roundabout in Raqqa. The men, who were riding motorbikes, were then hunted down by Isis forces, according to a statement from the group. Two of the men were sentenced to die by crucifixion.
One of the two was wrapped in a banner, which said: 'This man fought against Muslims and threw  a grenade in this place.'

Rick Warren invokes the name of Islamic Jesus at Obama Inauguration

Rick Warren invokes the name of Islamic Jesus at Obama Inauguration

Just When I Thought I Could Say “Amen”…
By Eric Barger
www.ericbarger.com



There I was, watching all of the regalia of the presidential inauguration. The crowds, the dignitaries, wondering if at any second a Muslim terrorist would be able to breech the heavy security try something unthinkable. Praise the Lord it all went relatively well. Of course, I was also waiting to see just what kind of prayer Rick Warren had co-opted to pray for the new incoming President and his administration. There was good cheer and lots of non-partisan wishes, including copious amounts of slightly sickening back slapping. Politics as usual was for at least a short time partially on hold anyway.

When Rick Warren was introduced I and many listened intently. Christians hoped for the best and prayed. Atheist sat poised with the ACLU on speed dial ready to cry foul should Warren actually mention the dreaded politically incorrect "J" word - Jesus. Others, having been mis-educated in government schools, wondered whose idea it was to have someone pray anyway. After all, those old guys who started this country really weren't religious, right? Or at least that's what the history teacher back in high school said just before the lecture on how only zealots would be so nutty as to hold to all those outdated notions like "One Nation Under God." But, I digress...

Frankly, I'd never before heard Dr. Warren express himself so passionately. No wonder. I'd be on an adrenalin rush too if I knew people in nearly every country in the world were watching. I kept thinking, "Come on Warren. Don't wimp out now." As much as I disagree with his philosophy and so much of what he has said and written (or omitted) in his books, I was truly rooting for him to not pray some generic prayer that the openly gay Episcopalian Bishop, Gene Robinson, would be proud of.

The inaugural prayer was proceeding along and Warren was rightly praying for God to lead and protect Obama. Though he didn't petition God as I have to "put a hook in Barak's nose to make him accomplish the will of the Lord," I honestly did appreciate what Warren prayed - at least to a point.

So, just when I thought I could say "amen," it happened. Warren said "I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray, "Our father who art in Heaven..." Opppsss. Wait a minute. I should have known that it was too good to be true. Yeshua and Jesus - great! "Isa" - not so much.

I have researched Islam for many years. Last year I ministered concerning the history, theology and intentions of Islam over 40 times in churches and conferences so naturally, Warren's use of the name of Isa, the false Jesus of Islam, was a glaring slap in the face to all that he had already prayed. "Isa" in no way represents the Jesus of the Bible but is instead the false Jesus of the Qur'an (Koran) and the Muslim Hadith.

"Isa" (pronounced "eee-sa") is the Islamic Jesus who was but a prophet and who certainly did not experience a sacrificial death on a cross let alone resurrect from the dead. In fact, in Islam the prophet Isa is actually the destroyer of Christianity - not it’s Savior. Obviously, this is simply NOT the same Jesus as is Yeshua. Thus far, only one person has written me to comment on Warren's statement. (Hats off to Diana in Ohio who did her homework.) She also noted a good page from a website we have linked to for quite some time (www.answering-islam.org) which highlights the differences between the Jesus of the Bible and the Isa of Islam. I have placed a link to this resource at the bottom of this article.

The Apostle Paul emphatically warned about those who would come presenting counterfeit Jesus'.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (II Cor. 11:3-4)

Instead of becoming spiritually sharper in these perilous days, it would seem that alarming numbers in the Christian world are instead drifting further out to sea. Many have adopted the misconceived notion that any mention of the word "God" must automatically mean that Jehovah is being referred to. This confusion is even more obvious when the name "Jesus" comes into play. Regardless of the fact that Mormonism's "Jesus" isn't the biblical Jesus or that Islam's Isa is just another spiritual deception many Christians appear unequipped to give an apologetic defense of even basic Christian beliefs. The bulk of the church has adopted sloppy study habits and even worse, the majority in the pews are slowly being seduced into accepting ideas that run clearly counter to the absolute truth of Christianity. There is little heed to Paul's admonition to "test everything." found in II Thessalonians 5 let alone to call out those who are leading the flock down the garden path with half truths and often blatant errors. Many are sadly just chicken when it comes to insisting on the pure proclamation of Jesus Christ. Remember, close is only good enough when playing horseshoes and hurling hand grenades.

This now brings us to another problem with Warren's inaugural prayer. The word Jesus was spoken but where was Christ? Though he didn't miss including the name of the demonic anti-Christian deity Isa, did anyone else notice that during his prayer Warren did not invoke the Messianic title of "Christ?" There is only one "Christ" and these days without specificity the name Jesus could just as easily refer to countless Hispanic kids with the same name. Though he'll probably never comment, one has to wonder about Warren's inclusion of Isa and exclusion of Christ. They both make sense if you're looking for finely tuned political correctness with a twist of veiled one-world religion.

Does Dr. Warren not know about Isa? If he truly doesn't then shame on him. Rick Warren accepted the false premise that Jehovah and Allah are the same deity when he joined in signing "Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to a Common Word Between us and You" with a number of ill-advised liberals, heretics and pseudo-evangelicals at Yale University in 2007. Supposing that Jehovah and Allah are one is certainly the affirmation of a form of limited universalism at best. I won't revisit all of that here but from judging the contents of his inaugural prayer it is obvious that Dr. Warren hasn't amended his position. (See my articles "I Can't Sign the Letter", "Their God is NOT our God." and "Evangelical Meltdown - Islam and Christianity at Yale")

My friends, I perceive that the "Isa incident" we witnessed at the 2009 presidential inauguration to be just the sort of misleading theological shenanigans that will occur as the Antichrist becomes prominent. The Bible doesn't seem to indicate that the Antichrist's rise to power will be iron fisted. Instead, it could be somewhat incremental, maybe subtle and without a doubt very crafty. This is similar to what we are seeing today lead by Warren and the gang - a little inclusiveness here; a little universalism there; don't commit to any absolutes; just smile and say "God bless you" and pretty soon the spiritual discernment of the majority is glazed over like a donut and the seduction becomes fully blown. It's talk the talk to those who want to hear Christian rhetoric and sing a different tune when the world is watching. When you listen to the Warren's, Osteen's and Schuller's around us you get a sense of just how truly sidetracked and noncommittal some in the alleged evangelical Church have already become. Instead of focusing on the souls of mankind, it would appear that the end goal is to be non-confrontational to other religions and non-offensive to as many people in society as possible - even at the cost of absolute truth. It is sick and yet many of our friends and loved ones are buying what these guys are selling and then think that we're nut cases for insistently being so "narrow."

Though I am not saying that any of the people mentioned in this article is the actual Man of Sin himself, we had better listen very carefully when someone stands up to pray. This is especially so when the one praying claims to be an "evangelical" and his prayer is to be offered before an audience of a billion+ people worldwide. Words like "sincere,” "passionate,” "persuasive" have been written today in describing Warren's inaugural prayer. Before being swept up in the hype however, remember that these words are being used to describe someone whose ideology insists that Christianity, its God and its Savior are somehow allied with a demonic god and the pure evil which is found in Islam.

For information on Isa visit: http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html



Copyright Eric Barger, 2009

Muslims—What does the Qur'an say about Isa (Jesus)?

Muslims—What does the Qur'an say about Isa (Jesus)?


See this page in: French, Indonesian, Portuguese
Camel in caravan. Photo copyrighted. Courtesy of Films for Christ. Over 1400 years ago, Muhammad (Mohammed) was born in Arabia. His father Abdullah was of the tribe of Qureyshi, and died before Muhammad was born.
As a lad, Muhammad traveled to Syria with his uncle on merchant caravans. Years later, he made the same journey while working for a wealthy widow named Khadijah. He later married her and, even though he was 15 years younger than she was, they had a good marriage.
Muhammad soon gained rank among the notables of Mecca. The Meccans claimed to be descendants of Abraham (Ibrahim).
As one who abhorred evil, Muhammad detested those who disobeyed the Scriptures. He was familiar with the teachings of the Jewish and Christian holy book the Bible (perhaps in reading it himself, if he was literate, or in learning of it through oral means via storytelling). He was very upset with the hypocrisy among the people: the idol worship, and anything dishonoring to God was very revolting to Him. He believed that Allah had revealed the Torah and the gospels (the Injil).

"ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong)."—Qur'an, Surah 3:3-4
One who was greatly respected by Muhammad was Abraham (Ibrahim), whom he called an upright and righteous man.
"Abraham was indeed a paragon of virtue, obedient to ALLAH, ever inclined to HIM, and he was not of those who set up equals with ALLAH; Ever grateful for HIS favours: HE chose him and guided him to a straight path. And WE bestowed on him good in this world, and in the Hereafter he will surely be among the righteous. And now WE have sent revelation to thee, enjoining, 'Follow the way of Abraham who was ever inclined to ALLAH and was not of those who set up equals to HIM.'"—Qur'an, Surah 16:121-124
Abraham was also looked upon as one who fulfilled God's commands:
"And remember when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commandments which he fulfilled, HE said, 'I will make thee a leader of men.' Abraham asked, 'And from among my offspring?' God said, 'MY covenant does not embrace the transgressors.'"—Qur'an, Surah 2:125
Muhammad also had great understanding of the scriptures and faith in the angels who told Zechariah he would have a son (as in Luke 1:18, 57-60).
"So her Lord accepted her with gracious acceptance and caused her to grow an excellent growth and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah visited her in the chamber, he found with her provisions. He said, 'O Mary whence hast thou this ?' She replied, 'It is from ALLAH.' Surely ALLAH gives to whomsoever HE pleases without measure.
Then and there did Zachariah pray to his Lord, saying, 'My Lord grant me from Thyself pure offspring; surely thou art the Hearer of Prayer.'
And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the chamber, 'ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of Yahya, who shall testify to the truth of a word from ALLAH - noble and chaste and a Prophet, from among the righteous.
He said 'My Lord, how shall I have a son, when old age has overtaken me already, and my wife is barren?' He answered, 'Such is the way of ALLAH; HE does what HE pleases,'
He said 'My Lord, give me a commandment.' He replied, 'The commandment for thee is that thou shalt not speak to men for three days except by signs.
And remember thy Lord much and glorify HIM in the evening and in the early morning.' And remember when the angels said, 'ALLAH has chosen thee and purified thee and chosen thee above all women of the time.
'O Mary, be obedient to thy Lord and prostrate thyself and worship the one God with those who worship HIM.'
This is of the tidings of things unseen which WE reveal to thee. And thou was not with them when they cast their arrows, as to which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor was thou with them when they disputed with one another.
When the angels said, 'O Mary, ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of a son through a word from HIM; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;
'And he shall speak to the people in the cradle, and when of middle age, and he shall be of the righteous.
She said, 'My Lord, how shall I have a son, when no man has touched me? He said, 'Such is the way of ALLAH. HE creates what HE pleases. When HE decrees a thing HE says to it 'Be,' and it is;"—Qur'an, Surah 3:38-48
Muhammad also speaks of the resurrection of Jesus:
"Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt."—Qur'an, Surah 19:30-35
In calling Jesus a messenger, Muhammad was also correct. He did not mean that Jesus was not the Messiah. Muhammad knew that one could be a messenger and not be a Messiah… but as The Messiah, one is also a messenger.
Jesus was both a messenger and The Messiah that Allah had promised! What is a Messiah? A Messiah is always known as "a Saviour… a liberator and a deliverer." God had promised to send one (Messiah) to pay the debt of sin for all mankind.
The Messiah!… God's gift to sinful man… The Saviour… The Liberator… Our Redeemer. The prophets of the Torah foretold of His coming. Muhammad and his Disciples revered Him… the Qur'an and the Bible reveal Him! The Messiah… The Saviour of the world! Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible speak of any other as being the Messiah!!!
Dear friend, that is the most profound truth! And it is truth that cannot be denied. Jesus is the one and only Messiah. He is the Saviour. He is the Messiah of the Muslims, the Jews, and the Gentiles. Millions throughout the world of every nation and creed accept Him as Saviour.
Many have followed false Messiahs and had their lives ended in death. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong. Had they only accepted the indisputable claim that Jesus is the Messiah, they would have found the peace that they were looking for, and the eternal life that God has promised to all who will accept Jesus as Messiah… the Saviour of the world. Yes, Isah Al Masih loves you! The Messiah that Muhammad wrote about… to forgive you and to be your Saviour… your Liberator… your Deliverer from sin. History tells us that He was crucified and died on a cross. History tells us that three days later there was an empty tomb. History, and hundreds of eye witnesses, tell us that He rose from the dead. But sadly many also reject the love and forgiveness God has offered in Jesus.
Allah has given you a free will. YOU must make a choice. You cannot be neutral.
Don't take this writer's word for it. Investigate for yourself the claims of Muhammad, the prophecies in the Torah, and the life of Jesus written in the Bible. The prophecies that were fulfilled by His birth, life, death and resurrection.
Check out the reasons why Paul, the greatest persecutor of Jesus' followers, became such a strong believer in Jesus as the Messiah… and why he became the world's greatest missionary.
If you are not already a follower of Isah (Jesus), you must make a choice 1) to believe that Jesus is the Messiah OR 2) to reject Him as Saviour. You can choose to believe the Messiah, Jesus, who said He would, and did, rise from the dead. Allah gave Jesus, born miraculously through Mary (Maryam, Sura 3:45) as Muhammed agreed, to the world… for you.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."—John 3:16
("Son of God" does not mean that God had physical relations with Mary, but rather that God willed it supernaturally that Mary would become the earthly mother of Jesus even as a virgin. See Surah 3:47-48)
Allah loves you. How could anyone want to reject such a wonderful love… reject Allah's forgiveness… His promises of eternal life? The Bible teaches how we can know where we will spend eternity.

Kenya: Authorities Release Barack Obama’s “Real” Birth Certificate

obama Nairobi| The Office of the Principal Register of the Nyanza Province, in Kenya, has finally released 11 exclusive documents concerning Barack Obama’s alleged birth and early childhood in the country. These official papers had been requested for years by the Tea Party Patriots, an American conservative organization, to no avail, but the Kenyan Supreme Court recently ordered authorities to release the documents, based on a law on “access to information. These files, if they turn out to be verifiable, could mean that Mr. Obama had no legal right to become the American president under the country’s law.
The papers released today suggest that Barack Obama was actually born on March 7 1960, in Lamu, Kenya, more than a year before his father moved to Hawaii, where he allegedly met his mother. This contradicts most of the documents presented by the presidential office over the last years, suggesting that either the American or the Kenyan papers are actually fakes.
The official version of Barack Obama’s birth presented by the White House in the past, was that he was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now called the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children) in Honolulu, Hawaii. His parents were Ann Dunham, from Wichita, Kansas, and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo in the Nyanza Province, in what was then the “Colony and Protectorate of Kenya”. Mr. Obama Senior was attending the University of Hawaii at the time, where he supposedly met Ms. Dunham.
A Kenyan publication, The Standard, had reported in 2004 that Obama was “Kenyan-Born”, but the lack of proof presented had led the rest of the mediatic world to dismiss the article has fake or unfounded. Jim Geraghty of the conservative website National Review Online may have sparked further speculation on June 9, 2008, when he asked Obama to release his birth certificate.Geraghty wrote that doing so could debunk several false rumors circulating on the Internet.
Such rumors were very numerous at the time, covering many topics. These included namely: that his middle name was originally Muhammad rather than Hussein; that his mother had originally named him “Barry” rather than “Barack”; and that Barack Obama, Sr. was not his biological father, as well as the rumor that Barack Obama was not a natural-born Citizen. Mr. Obama and the White House had given no answer whatsoever to that request, choosing to simply ignore the question, but had finally released some documents that were allegedly Mr. Obama’s birth certificate in two different forms. The release of these certificates had seemed to put an end to the rumors at the time, but it is to be expected that the “Kenyan documents” will fuel a whole new wave of rumors and conspiracy theories.

Original Long Form Birth Certificate "Accepted", COLB "Filed"

Original Long Form Birth Certificate "Accepted", COLB "Filed"

The fact that Barack Hussein Obama’s II original long form birth certificate was sealed by order of the Court is evidenced by the fact it was “accepted” by the registrar Aug 8, 1961 and then the COLB was “filed” by the registrar Aug 8, 1961. Gov. Neil Abercrombie affirmed Obama's original long form birth certificate was sealed and archived after he conducted an investigation into Obama's vital records held by the State of Hawai'i.

"Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who took office in December, told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser on Tuesday that "our investigation" indicates there is a recording of his birth.

"It actually exists in the archives, written down," he said.

New York Daily News has the story. 

ACCEPTED - Registrar accepts the affidavits of the mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator swearing the vital information provided to the registrar is true and correct.


FILED - The Court ordered the vital record to be created and filed. The Registrar does not have the choice to accept or refuse to file the submitted vital information.


Obama’s original long form birth certificate was ACCEPTED after his mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator signed affidavits attesting to the veracity of the information found on the original long form birth certificate.


Obama’s COLB was FILED after a Court ordered it to be FILED. (Note: COLB was ordered created and filed in 1971, 1972 and backdated to indicate it was filed on Aug 8, 1961 by order of the Court).
Most Hawaiians have an ACCEPTED original long form BC and an ACCEPTED COLB.


And finally, here is a screen capture of 3 Hawaiian COLB's placed side by side. The COLB on the far left and the COLB in the middle are ACCEPTED, which indicates the Hawai'i Registrar ACCEPTED the attestations of  the mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator as a true and correct of reflection of the information enumerated on the subjects date of birth. The sworn statements of the mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator remained intact since the original long form birth certificate was ACCEPTED, so the Hawai'i Registrar ACCEPTED the COLB as a true and accurate reflection of the date enumerated on the date of the subject's birth.


Obama's COLB has a date FILED and a date ACCEPTED on the original long form birth certificate to indicate a Court intervention after the attestation of the mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator was ACCEPTED. Courts order a vtial record to be FILED and the Hawai'i Registrar must follow the order.

The Secretary took this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the invalidation of § 1481(c) posed a substantial constitutional issue, we noted probable jurisdiction. 440 U.S. 970.

II

The Secretary first urges that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a "specific intent to renounce U.S. citizenship" must be proved "before the mere taking of an oath of allegiance could result in an individual's expatriation." 577 F.2d at 11. [Footnote 5] His position is that he need prove only the
Page 444 U. S. 259
voluntary commission of an act, such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation, that
"is so inherently inconsistent with the continued retention of American citizenship that Congress may accord to it its natural consequences, i.e., loss of nationality."
Brief for Appellant 24. We disagree.
In Afroyim v. Rusk,387 U. S. 253 (1967), the Court held that § 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 116 1169, which provided that an American citizen "shall lose his nationality by . . . [v] voting in a political election in a foreign state," contravened the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Afroyim was a naturalized American citizen who lived in Israel for 10 years. While in that nation, Afroyim voted in a political election. He in consequence was stripped of his United States citizenship. Consistently with Perez v. Brownell,356 U. S. 44 (1958), which had sustained § 401(e), the District Court affirmed the power of Congress to expatriate for such conduct regardless of the citizen's intent to renounce his citizenship. This Court, however, in overruling Perez,
"reject[ed] the idea . . . that, aside from the Fourteenth
Page 444 U. S. 260
Amendment, Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent."
Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, at 387 U. S. 257. The Afroyim opinion continued: § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "most reasonably . . . read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it." 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 262.
The Secretary argues that Afroyim does not stand for the proposition that a specific intent to renounce must be shown before citizenship is relinquished. It is enough, he urges, to establish one of the expatriating acts specified in § 1481(a), because Congress has declared each of those acts to be inherently inconsistent with the retention of citizenship. But Afroyim emphasized that loss of citizenship requires the individual's "assent," 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 257, in addition to his voluntary commission of the expatriating act. It is difficult to understand that "assent" to loss of citizenship would mean anything less than an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in words or is found as a fair inference from proved conduct. Perez had sustained congressional power to expatriate without regard to the intent of the citizen to surrender his citizenship. Afroyim overturned this proposition. It may be, as the Secretary maintains, that a requirement of intent to relinquish citizenship poses substantial difficulties for the Government in performance of its essential task of determining who is a citizen. Nevertheless, the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, among other things, was to define citizenship; and as interpreted in Afroyim, that definition cannot coexist with a congressional power to specify acts that work a renunciation of citizenship even absent an intent to renounce. In the last analysis, expatriation depends on the will of the citizen, rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct.
The Secretary argues that the dissent in Perez, which it is said the Court's opinion in Afroyim adopted, spoke of conduct
Page 444 U. S. 261
so contrary to undivided allegiance to this country that it could result in loss of citizenship without regard to the intent of the actor and that "assent" should not therefore be read as a code word for intent to renounce. But Afroyim is a majority opinion, and its reach is neither expressly nor implicitly limited t.o that of the dissent in Perez. Furthermore, in his Perez dissent, Mr. Chief Justice Warren, in speaking of those acts that were expatriating because so fundamentally inconsistent with citizenship, concluded by saying that, in such instances, the "Government is simply giving formal recognition to the inevitable consequence of the citizen's own voluntary surrender of his citizenship." Perez v. Brownell, supra at 356 U. S. 69. This suggests that the Chief Justice's conception of "actions in derogation of undivided allegiance to this country," 356 U.S. at 356 U. S. 68, in fact would entail an element of assent.
In any event, we are confident that it would be inconsistent with Afroyim to treat the expatriating acts specified in § 1481(a) as the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen. "Of course," any of the specified acts "may be highly persuasive evidence in the particular case of a purpose to abandon citizenship." Nisikawa v. Dulles,356 U. S. 129, 356 U. S. 139 (1958) (Black, J., concurring). But the trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship.
This understanding of Afroyim is little different from that expressed by the Attorney General in his 1969 opinion explaining the impact of that case. 42 Op.Atty.Gen. 397. An "act which does not reasonably manifest an individual's transfer or abandonment of allegiance to the United States," the Attorney General said, "cannot be made a basis for expatriation." Id. at 400. Voluntary relinquishment is "not confined to a written renunciation," but "can also be
Page 444 U. S. 262
manifested by other actions declared expatriative under the [A]ct, if such actions are in derogation of allegiance to this country." Ibid. Even in these cases, however, the issue of intent was deemed by the Attorney General to be open; and, once raised, the burden of proof on the issue was on the party asserting that expatriation had occurred. Ibid. "In each case," the Attorney General stated,
"the administrative authorities must make a judgment, based on all the evidence, whether the individual comes within the terms of an expatriation provision and has, in fact, voluntarily relinquished his citizenship."
Id. at 401. It was under this advice, as the Secretary concedes, that the relevant departments of the Government have applied the statute and the Constitution to require an ultimate finding of an intent to expatriate. Brief for Appellant 557, n. 28. [Footnote 6]
Page 444 U. S. 262
Accordingly, in the case now before us, the Board of Appellate Review of the State Department found that appellee not only swore allegiance to Mexico, but also intended to abandon his United States citizenship:
"In consideration of the complete record, we view appellant's declaration of allegiance to Mexico and his concurrent repudiation of any and all submission, obedience, and loyalty to the United States as compelling evidence of a specific intent to relinquish his United States citizenship."
App. to Juris.Statement 50a. This same view -- that expatriation depends on the will of a citizen as ascertained from his words and conduct -- was also reflected in the United States' response to the petition for certiorari in United States v. Matheson, 532 F.2d 809, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 823 (1976). [Footnote 7] Insofar as we are advised, this view remained the official position of the United States until the appeal in this case.
As we have said, Afroyim requires that the record support a finding that the expatriating act was accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship. The submission of the United States is inconsistent with this holding, and we are unprepared to reconsider it.
Page 444 U. S. 264

III

With respect to the principal issues before it, the Court of Appeals held that Congress was without constitutional authority to prescribe the standard of proof in expatriation proceedings, and that the proof in such cases must be by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by the preponderance standard prescribed in § 1481(c). We are in fundamental disagreement with these conclusions.
In Nishikawa v. Dulles,356 U. S. 129 (1958), an American-born citizen, temporarily in Japan, was drafted into the Japanese Army. The Government later claimed that, under § 401(c) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 119, he had expatriated himself by serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation. The Government agreed that expatriation had not occurred if Nishikawa's army service had been involuntary. Nishikawa contended that the Government had to prove that his service was voluntary, while the Government urged that duress was an affirmative defense that Nishikawa had the burden to prove by overcoming the usual presumption of voluntariness. This Court held the presumption unavailable to the Government and required proof of a voluntary expatriating act by clear and convincing evidence.
Section 1481(c) soon followed; its evident aim was to supplant the evidentiary standards prescribed by Nishikawa. [Footnote 8]
Page 444 U. S. 265
The provision
"sets up rules of evidence under which the burden of proof to establish loss of citizenship by preponderance of the evidence would rest upon the Government. The presumption of voluntariness under the proposed rules of evidence, would be rebuttable -- similarly -- by preponderance of the evidence. . . ."
H.R.Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 41 (1961).
We see no basis for invalidating the evidentiary prescriptions contained in § 1481(c). Nishikawa was not rooted in the Constitution. The Court noted, moreover, that it was acting in the absence of legislative guidance. Nishikawa v. Dulles, supra, at 356 U. S. 135. Nor do we agree with the Court of Appeals that, because, under Afroyim, Congress is constitutionally devoid of power to impose expatriation on a citizen, it is also without power to prescribe the evidentiary standards to govern expatriation proceedings. 577 F.2d at 10. Although § 1481(c) had been law since 1961, Afroyim did not address or advert to that section; surely the Court would have said so had it intended to construe the Constitution to exclude expatriation proceedings from the traditional powers of Congress to prescribe rules of evidence and standards of proof in the federal courts. This power, rooted in the authority
Page 444 U. S. 266
of Congress conferred by Art. 1, § 8, cl. 9, of the Constitution to create inferior federal courts, is undoubted and has been frequently noted and sustained. See, e.g., Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.,428 U. S. 1, 428 U. S. 31 (1976); Hawkins v. United States,358 U. S. 74, 358 U. S. 78 (1958); Tot v. United States,319 U. S. 463, 319 U. S. 467 (1943).
We note also that the Court's opinion in Afroyim was written by Mr. Justice Black who, in concurring in Nishikawa, said that the question whether citizenship has been voluntarily relinquished is to be determined on the facts of each case, and that Congress could provide rules of evidence for such proceedings. Nishikawa v. Dulles, supra at 356 U. S. 139. In this respect, we agree with Mr. Justice Black; and since Congress has the express power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, it is untenable to hold that it has no power whatsoever to address itself to the manner or means by which Fourteenth Amendment citizenship may be relinquished.
We are unable to conclude that the specific evidentiary standard provided by Congress in § 1481(c) is invalid under either the Citizenship Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It is true that, in criminal and involuntary commitment contexts, we have held that the Due Process Clause imposes requirements of proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Mullaney v. Wilbur,421 U. S. 684 (1975); Addington v. Texas,441 U. S. 418 (1979). This Court has also stressed the importance of citizenship, and evinced a decided preference for requiring clear and convincing evidence to prove expatriation. Nishikawa v. United States, supra. But expatriation proceedings are civil in nature, and do not threaten a loss of liberty. Moreover, as we have noted, Nishikawa did not purport to be a constitutional ruling, and the same is true of similar rulings in related areas. Woodby v. INS,385 U. S. 276, 385 U. S. 285 (1966) (deportation); Schneiderman v. United States,320 U. S. 118, 320 U. S. 125 (1943) (denaturalization). None of these cases involved a congressional judgment,
Page 444 U. S. 267
such as that present here, that the preponderance standard of proof provides sufficient protection for the interest of the individual in retaining his citizenship. Contrary to the Secretary's position, we have held that expatriation requires the ultimate finding that the citizen has committed the expatriating act with the intent to renounce his citizenship. This in itself is a heavy burden, and we cannot hold that Congress has exceeded its powers by requiring proof of an intentional expatriating act by a preponderance of evidence.

IV

The Court of Appeals did not discuss separately the validity of the statutory presumption provided in § 1481(c). By holding that the section was beyond the power of Congress, however, and by requiring that the expatriating act be proved voluntary by clear and convincing evidence, the Court of Appeals effectively foreclosed use of the § 1481(c) presumption of voluntariness, not only in the remand proceedings in the District Court, but also in other expatriation proceedings in that Circuit. As we have indicated, neither the Citizenship Clause nor Afroyim places suits such as this wholly beyond the accepted power of Congress to prescribe rules of evidence in federal courts. We also conclude that the presumption of voluntariness provided in § 1481(c) is not otherwise constitutionally infirm.
Section 1481(c) provides in relevant part that
"any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily."
In enacting § 1481(c), Congress did not dispute the holding of Nishikawa that the alleged expatriating act -- there, service in a foreign army -- must be performed voluntarily, but it did
Page 444 U. S. 268
insist that the Government have the benefit of the usual presumption of voluntariness, and that one claiming that his act was involuntary make out his claim of duress by a preponderance of the evidence.
It is important at this juncture to note the scope of the statutory presumption. Section 1481(c) provides that any of the statutory expatriating acts, if proved, are presumed to have been committed voluntarily. It does not also direct a presumption that the act has been performed with the intent to relinquish United States citizenship. That matter remains the burden of the party claiming expatriation to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. As so understood, we cannot invalidate the provision. [Footnote 9]
The majority opinion in Nishikawa referred to the "ordinary rule that duress is a matter of affirmative defense" to be proved by the party claiming the duress. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. at 356 U. S. 134. Justices Frankfurter and Burton, concurring in the result, also referred to the
"ordinarily controlling principles of evidence [that] would suggest that the individual, who is peculiarly equipped to clarify an ambiguity in the meaning of outward events, should have the burden of proving what his state of mind was."
Id. at 356 U. S. 141. And Mr. Justice Harlan, in dissent with Mr. Justice Clark, pointed to the "general rule that consciously performed acts are presumed voluntary" and referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), which treats duress as a matter of affirmative defense. 356 U.S. at 356 U. S. 144. Yet the Court in Nishikawa,
Page 444 U. S. 269
because it decided that "the consequences of denationalization are so drastic" and because it found nothing indicating a contrary result in the legislative history of the Nationality Act of 1940, held that the Government must carry the burden of proving that the expatriating act was performed voluntarily. Id. at 356 U. S. 133-138. [Footnote 10]
Section 1481(c), which was enacted subsequently, and its legislative history, H.R.Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 40-41 (1961), make clear that Congress preferred the ordinary rule that voluntariness is presumed and that duress is an affirmative defense to be proved by the party asserting it. See Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States,271 U. S. 43, 271 U. S. 49-50 (1926); Towson v. Moore,173 U. S. 17, 173 U. S. 23-24 (1899); Savage v. United States,92 U. S. 382, 92 U. S. 387-388 (1876). "Duress, if proved, may be a defence to an action . . . , but the burden of proof to establish the charge . . . is upon the party making it. . . ." Mason v. United States, 17 Wall. 67, 84 U. S. 74 (1873). [Footnote 11] The rationality of the procedural rule with respect to claims of involuntariness in ordinary civil cases cannot be doubted. To invalidate the rule here would be to disagree flatly with Congress
Page 444 U. S. 270
on the balance to be struck between the interest in citizenship and the burden the Government must assume in demonstrating expatriating conduct. It would also constitutionalize that disagreement and give the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment far more scope in this context than the relevant circumstances that brought the Amendment into being would suggest appropriate. Thus, we conclude that the presumption of voluntariness included in § 1481(c) has continuing vitality.

V

In sum, we hold that, in proving expatriation, an expatriating act and an intent to relinquish citizenship must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. We also hold that, when one of the statutory expatriating acts is proved, it is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor. If he succeeds, there can be no expatriation. If he fails, the question remains whether on all the evidence the Government has satisfied its burden of proof that the expatriating act was performed with the necessary intent to relinquish citizenship.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissents for the reasons stated in 444 U. S. JUSTICE BRENNAN's dissenting opinion, which he Joins.
[Footnote 1]
The relevant statutory provisions are §§ 349(a)(2),(c) of the Act, 66 Stat. 267, as amended, 75 Stat. 656, as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1481:
"(a) From and after the effective date of this chapter a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by -- "
"* * * *"
"(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof;"
"* * * *"
"(c) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily."
[Footnote 2]
The application contained the following statement:
"I therefore hereby expressly renounce __________ citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience, and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of _________, of which I might have been subject, all protection foreign to the laws and authorities of Mexico, all rights which treaties or international law grant to foreigners; and furthermore I swear adherence, obedience, and submission to the laws and authorities of the Mexican Republic."
The blank spaces in the statement were filled in with the words "Estados Unidos" (United States) and "Norteamerica" (North America), respectively. Brief for Appellant 4.
[Footnote 3]
The Fourteenth Amendment, § 1, reads:
"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."
[Footnote 4]
In remanding the case to the District Court, the Court of Appeals did not "necessarily requir[e] that court to conduct a new trial." 577 F.2d at 12. The Court of Appeals recognized that, even granting the higher standard of proof it had imposed on the District Court, the factual determinations already on the record might be adequate to permit consideration of the case on remand without the holding of another trial or evidentiary hearing. Ibid.
[Footnote 5]
The Court of Appeals' discussion of specific intent is submerged in its analysis of proper evidentiary standards. Id. at 11. The absence of independent analysis undoubtedly resulted from the Secretary's failure to contend in either the District Court or the Court of Appeals that it was unnecessary to prove an intent to relinquish citizenship. Indeed, the jurisdictional statement filed by the Secretary in this Court presented the single question whether 8 U.S.C. § 1481(c) is unconstitutional under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; it did not present separately the question whether proof of a specific intent to relinquish is essential to expatriation.
Our Rule 15(1)(c) states that "[o]nly the questions set forth in the jurisdictional statement or fairly comprised therein will be considered by the court." The Secretary now argues that resolution of the intent issue is an essential, or at least an advisable, predicate to an intelligent resolution of the constitutionality of § 1481(c). There is some merit in this position: arguably, the intent issue is fairly comprised in the question set forth in the jurisdictional statement. In any event, consideration of issues not present in the jurisdictional statement or petition for certiorari and not presented in the Court of Appeals is not beyond our power, and, in appropriate circumstances, we have addressed them. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation,402 U. S. 313, 402 U. S. 320, n. 6 (1971); Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins,304 U. S. 64 (1938) (parties agreed that Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 (1842), was still good law [argument of counsel omitted from electronic version]). Cf. Vachon v. New Hampshire,414 U. S. 478 (1974); Moragne v. States Marine Lines,398 U. S. 375 (1970); Silber v. United States,370 U. S. 717 (1962). See generally R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice §§ 6.27 and 7.14 (5th ed.1978).
As will be more apparent below, the Secretary, represented in this Court by the Solicitor General, has changed his position on the intent issue since the decision of the Court of Appeals; and his present position is at odds with a 1969 opinion of the Attorney General, 42 Op.Atty.Gen. 397, which interpreted Afroyim v. Rusk and guided the administrative actions of the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The issue of intent is important, the parties have briefed it, and we shall address it.
[Footnote 6]
As the Secretary states in his brief, Brief for Appellant 57, n. 28,
"both the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service have adopted administrative guidelines that attempt to ascertain the individual's intent by taking into consideration the nature of the expatriating act and the individual's statements and actions made in connection with that act."
The State Department's guideline evidences a position on intent quite similar to that adopted here:
"In the light of the Afroyim decision and the Attorney General's Statement of Interpretation of that decision, the Department now holds that the taking of a meaningful oath of allegiance to a foreign state is highly persuasive evidence of an intent to transfer or abandon allegiance. The taking of an oath that is not meaningful does not result in expatriation. The meaningfulness of the oath must be decided by the Department on the individual merits of each case."
Department of State, 8 Foreign Affairs Manual § 224.2, p. 2 (1970) (emphasis in original). Cf. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Interpretations § 349.1(d)(2), p. 6976.4 (1970) (characterizing Afroyim as overruling Perez's holding "that expatriation could flow from a voluntary act even though the citizen did not intend thereby to relinquish his United States citizenship"). Contemporaneous academic commentary agreed that Afroyim imposed the requirement of intent to relinquish citizenship on a party seeking to establish expatriation. See Comment, An Expatriation Enigma: Afroyim v. Rusk, 48 B.U.L.Rev. 295, 298 (1968); Note, Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship: The Limits of Afroyim v. Rusk, 54 Cornell L.Rev. 624, 624-625 (1969); The Supreme Court: 1966 Term, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 69, 126 (1967); Note, 29 Ohio St.L.J. 797, 801 (1968).
[Footnote 7]
In his response to the petition for certiorari in Matheson, the Solicitor General argued that "Afroyim broadly held that Congress has no power to prescribe any objective conduct that will automatically result in expatriation, absent the individual's voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. . . ." Brief in Opposition in Matheson v. United States, O T.1976, No. 75-1651, p. 8. In Matheson, it was maintained,
"there is nothing in the record that would support a finding that decedent's application for a certificate of Mexican nationality was prompted by a specific intent to relinquish her American citizenship."
Id. at 7. Thus, the Solicitor General concluded no expatriation could be said to have taken place.
[Footnote 8]
The House Report accompanying § 1481(c), H.R.Rep. No. 108, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 40 (1961), took direct aim at Nishikawa's holding that "the Government must in each case prove voluntary conduct by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence." Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. at 356 U. S. 138. The Report quoted with approval from Mr. Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion in Nishikawa:
"Although the Court recognizes the general rule that consciously performed acts are presumed voluntary [citations omitted], it in fact alters this rule in all denationalization cases by placing the burden of proving voluntariness on the Government, thus relieving citizen-claimants in such cases from the duty of proving that their presumably voluntary acts were actually involuntary."
"One of the prime reasons for imposing the burden of proof on the party claiming involuntariness is that the evidence normally lies in his possession."
"I . . . find myself compelled to dissent because, in my opinion, the majority's position can be squared neither with congressional intent nor with proper and well established rules governing the burden of proof on the issue of duress."
H.R.Rep. No. 1086, supra at 41 (quoting Nishikawa v. Dulles, supra at 356 U. S. 144-145).
The Report continued:
"In order to forestall further erosion of the statute designed to preserve and uphold the dignity and the priceless value of U.S. citizenship, with attendant obligations, [§ 1481(c)] sets up rules of evidence under which the burden of proof to establish loss of citizenship by preponderance of the evidence would rest upon the Government."
H.R.Rep. No. 1086, supra at 41. The Report concluded by describing the rebuttable presumption of voluntariness in § 1481(c).
[Footnote 9]
The Secretary asserts that the § 1481(c) presumption cannot survive constitutional scrutiny if we hold that intent to relinquish citizenship is a necessary element in proving expatriation. Brief for Appellant 26. The predicate for this assertion seems to be that § 1481(c) presumes intent to relinquish as well as voluntariness. We do not so read it. Even if we did, and even if we agreed that presuming the necessary intent is inconsistent with Afroyim, it would be unnecessary to invalidate the section insofar as it presumes that the expatriating act itself was performed voluntarily.
[Footnote 10]
The Court's departure from the normal rule that duress is an affirmative defense to be proved by the party seeking to rely on it was noted when Nishikawa was handed down. See The Supreme Court: 1957 Term, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 77, 166, 171 (1958) (Nishikawa "not only extended the Government's burden in expatriation proceedings to include the absence of duress if this issue is raised, but also determined the standard by which it must be shown. The position of the majority runs counter to the usual rule that duress is an affirmative defense").
[Footnote 11]
The rule that duress is an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the party attempting to rely on it is well established. Even where a plaintiff's complaint improperly contains allegations that seek to avoid or defeat a potential affirmative defense,
"it is inappropriate for the court to shift the burden of proof on the anticipated defense to plaintiff as a 'sanction' for failing to follow the burden of pleading structure established by Rule 8 or by adopting the fiction that plaintiff's anticipation of the issue evidences his intention to 'assume' the burden of proving it."
5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1276, p 327 (1969). On affirmative defenses generally, see id. § 1270, at 289 et seq.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the Court's holding that a citizen of the United States may not lose his citizenship in the absence of a finding that he specifically intended to renounce it. I also concur in the adoption of a saving construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(2)
Page 444 U. S. 271
to require that the statutorily designated expatriating acts be done with a specific intent to relinquish citizenship.
I cannot, however, accept the majority's conclusion that a person may be found to have relinquished his American citizenship upon a preponderance of the evidence that he intended to do so. The Court's discussion of congressional power to "prescribe rules of evidence and standards of proof in the federal courts," ante at 444 U. S. 265, is the beginning, not the end, of the inquiry. It remains the task of this Court to determine when those rules and standards impinge on constitutional rights. As my Brother STEVENS indicates, the Court's casual dismissal of the importance of American citizenship cannot withstand scrutiny. And the mere fact that one who has been expatriated is not locked up in a prison does not dispose of the constitutional inquiry. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated over 20 years ago:
"[T]he expatriate has lost the right to have rights."
"This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies. It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious."
Trop v. Dulles,356 U. S. 86, 356 U. S. 102 (1958) (plurality opinion) (footnotes omitted).
For these reasons I cannot understand, much less accept, the Court's suggestion that "expatriation proceedings . . . do not threaten a loss of liberty." Ante at 444 U. S. 266. Recognizing that
Page 444 U. S. 272
a standard of proof ultimately "reflects the value society places'" on the interest at stake, Addington v. Texas,441 U. S. 418, 441 U. S. 425 (1979), I would hold that a citizen may not lose his citizenship in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that he intended to do so.
MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Court today unanimously reiterates the principle set forth in Afroyim v. Rusk,387 U. S. 253, that Congress may not deprive an American of his citizenship against his will, but may only effectuate the citizen's own intention to renounce his citizenship. I agree with the Court that Congress may establish certain standards for determining whether such a renunciation has occurred. It may, for example, provide that expatriation can be proved by evidence that a person has performed an act that is normally inconsistent with continued citizenship, and that the person thereby specifically intended to relinquish his American citizenship.
I do not agree, however, with the conclusion that Congress has established a permissible standard in 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(2). Since we accept dual citizenship, taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign government is not necessarily inconsistent with an intent to remain an American citizen. Moreover, as now written, the statute cannot fairly be read to require a finding of specific intent to relinquish citizenship. The statute unambiguously states that
"a national of the United States . . . shall lose his nationality by --"
"* * * * "
"(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof."
There is no room in this provision to imply a requirement of a specific intent to relinquish citizenship. The Court does
Page 444 U. S. 273
not attempt to do so, nor does it explain how any other part of the statute supports its conclusion that Congress required proof of specific intent. [Footnote 2/1]
I also disagree with the holding that a person may be deprived of his citizenship upon a showing by a mere preponderance of the evidence that he intended to relinquish it. The Court reasons that, because the proceedings in question are civil in nature, and do not result in any loss of physical liberty, no greater burden of proof is required than in the ordinary civil case. Such reasoning construes the constitutional concept of "liberty" too narrowly.
The House Report accompanying the 1961 amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 refers to "the dignity and the priceless value of U.S. citizenship." H.R.Rep.
Page 444 U. S. 274
No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 41 (1961). That characterization is consistent with this Court's repeated appraisal of the quality of the interest at stake in this proceeding. [Footnote 2/2] In my judgment, a person's interest in retaining his American citizenship is surely an aspect of "liberty" of which he cannot be deprived without due process of law. Because the interest at stake is comparable to that involved in Addington v. Texas,441 U. S. 418, essentially for the reasons stated in THE CHIEF JUSTICE's opinion for a unanimous Court in that case, see id. at 441 U. S. 425-427, 441 U. S. 431-433, I believe that due process requires that a clear and convincing standard of proof be met in this case as well before the deprivation may occur.
[Footnote 2/1]
It could perhaps be argued that a specific intent requirement can be derived from 8 U.S.C. § 1481(c). That subsection creates a rebuttable presumption that any expatriating act set forth in subsection (a) was performed "voluntarily." The term "voluntary" could conceivably be stretched to include the concept of a specific intent to renounce one's citizenship. While the person seeking to retain his citizenship would thus have the burden of showing a lack of specific intent, such a construction would at least provide a statutory basis for bringing the issue of intent into the proceeding. The majority apparently would not be willing to accept such a construction in order to salvage the statute, however, inasmuch as it rejects the appellant Secretary's argument that, if there is a requirement of specific intent, it is also subject to the presumption applicable to voluntariness. Ante at 444 U. S. 268.
The majority's assumption that the statute can be read to require specific intent to relinquish citizenship as an element of proof is also contradicted by the Court's treatment in Afroyim of a different subsection of the same statute. Like the subsection at issue here, subsection (a)(5) provided that an American automatically lost his nationality by performing a specific act: in that case, voting in a foreign election. If the majority's analysis in this case were correct, the Court in Afroyim should not have invalidated that provision of the statute; rather, it should merely have remanded for a finding as to whether Afroyim had voted in a foreign election with specific intent to relinquish his American citizenship. That the Court did not do so is strong evidence of its belief that the statute could not be reformed as it is today.
[Footnote 2/2]
See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez,372 U. S. 144, 372 U. S. 160, where the Court quoted another report describing American citizenship as "one of the most valuable rights in the world today.'" See also Afroyim v. Rusk,387 U. S. 253, 387 U. S. 267-268; Trop v. Dulles,356 U. S. 86, 356 U. S. 92.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins as to Part II, dissenting.
The Court holds that one may lose United States citizenship if the Government can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that certain acts, specified by statute, were done with the specific intent of giving up citizenship. Accordingly, the Court, in reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holds that the District Court applied the correct evidentiary standards in determining that appellee was properly stripped of his citizenship. Because I would hold that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States, U.S.Const., Amdt. 14, § 1, can lose that citizenship only by formally renouncing it, and because I would hold that the act of which appellee is accused in this case cannot be an expatriating act, I dissent.

I

This case is governed by Afroyim v. Rusk,387 U. S. 253
Page 444 U. S. 275
(1967). Afroyim, emphasizing the crucial importance of the right of citizenship, held unequivocally that a citizen has "a constitutional right to remain a citizen . . . unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship." Id. at 387 U. S. 268. "[T]he only way the citizenship . . . could be lost was by the voluntary renunciation or abandonment by the citizen himself." Id. at 387 U. S. 266. The Court held that, because Congress could not "abridge," "affect," "restrict the effect of," or "take . . . away" citizenship, Congress was "without power to rob a citizen of his citizenship" because he voted in a foreign election. Id. at 387 U. S. 267.
The same clearly must be true of the Government's attempt to strip appellee of citizenship because he swore an oath of allegiance to Mexico. [Footnote 3/1] Congress has provided for a procedure by which one may formally renounce citizenship. [Footnote 3/2] In this case, the appellant concedes that appellee has not renounced his citizenship under that procedure. [Footnote 3/3] Brief for Appellant 56. Because one can lose citizenship only by voluntarily renouncing it and because appellee has not formally renounced his, I would hold that he remains a citizen. Accordingly, I would remand the case with orders that appellee be given a declaration of United States nationality. [Footnote 3/4]
Page 444 U. S. 276

II

I reach the same result by another, independent line of reasoning. Appellee was born a dual national. He is a citizen of the United States because he was born here, and a citizen of Mexico because his father was Mexican. The only expatriating act of which appellee stands accused is having sworn an oath of allegiance to Mexico. If dual citizenship, per se, can be consistent with United States citizenship, Perkins v. Elg,307 U. S. 325, 307 U. S. 329, (1939), [Footnote 3/5] then I cannot see why an oath of allegiance to the other country of which one is already a citizen should create inconsistency. One owes allegiance to any country of which one is a citizen, especially when one is living in that country. Kawakita v. United States,343 U. S. 717, 343 U. S. 733-735 (1952). [Footnote 3/6] The formal oath adds nothing to the existing foreign citizenship and, therefore, cannot affect his United States citizenship.
[Footnote 3/1]
He was a Mexican citizen by virtue of his father's citizenship.
[Footnote 3/2]
Title 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6) provides that
"a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by . . ."
"* * * *"
"making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
The Secretary of State has prescribed such procedures in 22 CFR § 50.50 (1979). See Department of State, 8 Foreign Affairs Manual § 225.6 (1972). Congress also provided for renunciation by citizens while in the United States in 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a) (7). This last provision is not relevant to our case.
[Footnote 3/3]
Therefore, the appellant does not argue that appellee can be expatriated under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6). Seen. 2, supra.
[Footnote 3/4]
I would not reach the issues concerning 8 U.S.C. § 1481(c).
[Footnote 3/5]
Rogers v. Bellei,401 U. S. 815 (1971), is not to the contrary. Bellei's citizenship was not based on the Fourteenth Amendment, id. at 401 U. S. 833, 401 U. S. 835, and the issue before the Court was whether Bellei could lose his statutory citizenship for failure to satisfy a condition subsequent contained in the same statute that accorded him citizenship.
[Footnote 3/6]
Indeed, the opinion of the State Department once was
"that a person with a dual citizenship who lives abroad in the other country claiming him as a national owes an allegiance to it which is paramount to the allegiance he owes the United States."
Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. at 343 U. S. 734-735.
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.