Sunday, May 20, 2012

Obama calls nation to rebel against God ... where are our ministers?

Obama calls nation to rebel against God ... where are our ministers?

Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 5/15/2012 10:05:00 AM

 

Peter HeckLast week, the President of the United States of America called his people to outright rebellion against the Word and will of Almighty God. Did your minister say anything about it this week?

 

 

 

About 1:00 on Sunday afternoon, I found myself sitting in the grocery store parking lot with the kids in the back of the van, waiting on my wife. While the two girls were entertaining themselves, I picked up the phone and called my minister. I left him a voicemail thanking him for taking the time during his sermon to say what needed to be said: that regardless of what your political philosophy may be, every believer in America should be incensed that the leader of our country has called for a national embrace of a behavior that God Himself reserved the word "abomination" to describe.

In an era where ministers are increasingly turning towards fulfilling the words of the book of Timothy, where they say only what "itching ears want to hear," I felt like my minister needed some encouragement for having the courage to speak the truth in an increasingly dark generation. If your minister did the same, please give them a call or email of support. They deserve it.

In my book '78: How Christians Can Save America', I write about the fascinating reality that we've come to in our country today: when a doctor fails to treat our illness properly, we have no hesitation about filing malpractice or at least switching doctors. When our financial adviser makes poor decisions with our money, we have no hesitation about switching control to a different investment guru. But when ministers fail to stand on the authority of God's Word and speak the full truth to difficult circumstances, we so often give them a pass. Does this not seem to indicate that we are more concerned with our physical and financial health than our spiritual health? If so, God help us.

There is no avoiding the reality that this president, through his allegiance to the sexual anarchists of the left, has brought our country to a crossroads. Mr. Obama suggests moving in one direction; God's Word and the Natural, Moral Law it represents calls us to move in another. I cannot fathom how such a moment could possibly evade the awareness and conscious of this country's ministers. There are undoubtedly some good reasons why the topic didn't come up this week at church that don't include a fear of standing on truth. But if your minister did not mention it, it's completely appropriate to ask yourself -- and him/her -- why.

I compiled as many reasons as I could, and personally, would find them wanting. Perhaps ministers were in the middle of a series, and this reality didn't fit the flow of what they were preaching on. Can't exceptions be made when the fate of our civilization hangs in the balance? Perhaps that seems dramatic, but all one has to do is to peruse the historical record of Scripture to see that God, while slow to anger when cultures do not perfectly abide His calls to care for the poor and the less fortunate, does not abide a society that embraces and celebrates sexual depravity.

Perhaps those ministers who didn't mention this reality were simply unaware of what the president did last week. That isn't any better. Our ministers are to call us to be a generation like that of the Sons of Issachar -- a generation that "understands the times" and knows what our civilization must do. An increasing number of ministers, however, is steering clear of the issues that affect their flocks the most. When they do, they allow the world to define those issues and that direction ... not good. Perhaps that's why there are an increasing number of churched people who are confused about these issues -- or worse, find sin acceptable.

Perhaps it was because this last Sunday was Mother's Day. And what does the public embrace of homosexuality have to do with that, after all? Quite a lot, actually. In fact, it's difficult to imagine a more appropriate time to bring it up. Consider what we are honoring on Mother's Day -- the irreplaceable role that a mom plays in the life of her child. We honor the significant role that moms play in shaping our culture by the influence they exert over their children's hearts and minds. We implicitly recognize that there are things that God has gifted moms to be able to do that dads just can't provide. Yet, there is the President of the United States trampling such an idea -- suggesting that there is nothing superior about the combination of a mom and dad to any other potential arrangement. All a child needs is two loving parents. Barack knows better than God, after all.

Unfortunately, the most likely rationale our ministers had in not mentioning Barack Obama's call to rebellion against God is that they didn't want the controversy. After all, offended people don't readily contribute to the offering plates. Given how harsh that may sound, it should be noted that ministers in this generation are dealing with a reality that previous generations did not have to confront. In previous American generations, most ministers could know that when speaking the truth of Scripture, they would have the support of a heavily Judeo-Christian civilization. They did not have the threats or the resistance of a non-biblical, non-Christian culture pushing back against them. This generation of ministers does. They are coming to understand what countless ministers of the Gospel throughout the world have known for some time -- that there comes a point where we must choose between honoring God ... or honoring man. In an increasingly post-Christian America, ministers of Christ will come to understand what Jesus meant when He said, "Men will hate you because of me." Standing on truth has not cost us in the past -- at least here in America. That day is quickly coming to a close.

In a very real way, then, we are seeing the separating of the wheat from the chaff in this country's churches. We are seeing which ones will remain righteous and committed to God's Word despite the changing environment around them. We are seeing which ones have built their foundation upon the Rock and which ones have constructed themselves upon the shifting sands. We are seeing which ones are interested in seeking the applause of men and which ones are committed to receiving the applause of heaven.

Did your minister mention the fact that our nation's leader called his people to rebel against the authority of God? If not, you owe it to yourself, to your minister, to your church and to your country to politely, but forcefully ask them: "Why?"

Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:

NJ GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE for VP? Don’t let Mitt Romney choose a running mate with dirty Islamist ties

NJ GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE for VP? Don’t let Mitt Romney choose a running mate with dirty Islamist ties

BNI has posted these stories in the past, but here is a good summary of Christie’s repugnant, over- the-top support for Muslims with terrorist ties and whose loyalties are to Islam, not America, as well as his disparagement of those who oppose the recognition of sharia law by US Courts.

Daniel Pipes (H/T Frederic F)  A Quinnipiac poll in April showed Chris Christie the most popular potential Republican vice-presidential candidate, thanks to his budget cuts and standing up to government employee unions. But the governor of New Jersey has a problem, specifically an Islam problem, in the way of his possible ascent to higher office. We regret to report that, time and again, he has sided with Islamist forces against those safeguarding American security and civilization.

Some examples:

2008: When serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Christie embraced and kissed Mohammed Qatanani, imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, and praised him as “a man of great goodwill.”

He did this after Qatanani had publicly ranted against Jews and in support of funding Hamas, a U.S. government–designated terror organization, and on the eve of his deportation hearing for hiding an Israeli conviction for membership in Hamas. In addition, Christie designated a top aide, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness for Qatanani

2010: After Derek Fenton burned three pages of a Koran at a 9/11 memorial ceremony, his employer, New Jersey Transit, got Christie’s approval to fire him.

Christie vocally endorsed Fenton’s termination, even though this meant protecting Islam at the expense of Fenton’s constitutional right to free speech, declaring, “I don’t have any problem with him being fired.” The American Civil Liberties Union successfully represented Fenton to get his job back.

2010: Christie voted ‘present’ on the issue of opposition to the Ground Zero Victory mosque

“My principles on this are two-fold. One, that we have to acknowledge, respect and give some measure of deference to the feelings of the family members who lost there loved ones there that day. But it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans. But beyond that…I am not going to get into it…”

2011: Christie appointed an Islamist, Sohail Mohammed, to the New Jersey state superior court.

Mohammed’s record includes serving as general counsel to the American Muslim Union (which has stated that a “Zionist Commando Orchestrated The 9-11 Terrorist Attacks”), acting as spokesman for Muslim prisoners who went on a hunger strike due to being jailed during Ramadan, defending Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian (whose indictment, Mohammed said, was “nothing but a witch-hunt”), and helping Qatanani’s legal defense. Mohammed is not a lawyer for Islamists but one of them.

When members of New Jersey’s Senate Judiciary Committee asked Mohammed appropriately tough questions about his enthusiasm for Islam’s archaic law code, the Shari’a, Christie ridiculed the lawmakers: “Shari’a law has nothing to do with this [appointment of Mohammed] at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. … So, this Shari’a law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. I mean, you know, it’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.” Delighted by this outburst, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thanked and applauded Christie.

“Shari’a law has nothing to do with this [appointment of Mohammed] at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. … So, this Shari’a law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. I mean, you know, it’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.” Delighted by this outburst, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thanked and applauded Christie.

Sohail Mohammed, an immigration lawyer who represented detainees caught in the post-Sept. 11 furor, watches the Fox series ‘24’ at his office in Clifton, N.J. “Somewhere, some lunatic out there watching this will do something to an innocent American Muslim because he believes what he saw on TV,” Mohammed said.

2012:  Revelations that the New York Police Department had conducted surveillance of Islamists in the New Jersey towns of Newark and New Brunswick prompted not gratitude but outrage from Christie, who termed the action arrogant and paranoid while mocking NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly as “all knowing, all seeing.”

In short, Christie has hugged a terrorist organization member, abridged free-speech rights, scorned concern over Islamization, and opposed law enforcement counterterrorism efforts.Whenever an issue touching on Islam arises, Christie takes the Islamist side against those—the DHS, state senators, the NYPD, even the ACLU—who worry about lawful Islamism eroding the fabric of American life.

Even notorious liberal Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly's counter terrorism policies

Two factors render this pattern especially curious: First, soft-on-Islamism policies are common among Democrats but rare among Republicans (Grover Norquist being the major exception). Second, Christie has an ostentatiously pro-Israel stance, as reflected by his speeches and his recent “Jersey to Jerusalem” trip; this makes him unusual, for pro-Israel views typically go hand-in-hand with concern about Shari’a. How does one reconcile the Christie contradiction?

It could be that, other than fiscally, he is not a conservative but a moderate. It could be ego: the governor is just more brilliant than the rest of us. Or, as several analysts suggest, it could be cynical double pandering: Muslims get what they want most and Zionists what they want most, with each party ignoring what Christie does for the other. Interestingly, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut pursued this double track policy (soft on Islamism, staunch on Israel) and became the Democrats’ VP candidate in 2000.

Whatever the reason, we conclude that Chris Christie lacks the moral compass, gravitas, and integrity needed to serve as vice-president of the United States.

Perhaps Christie should be Barack Obama's running mate?

RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:

new-jersey-big-fat-muslim-asskissing-gov-chris-christies-state-says-yes-to-sharia-law

once-again-nj-gov-chris-christie-sides-with-muslims-against-the-nypds-counter-terrorism-surveillance-operations-in-nj

new-jersey-muslims-demand-gov-christie-investigate-nypd-surveillance-of-nj-mosques

first-the-nj-governor-appoints-a-muslim-terrorist-defense-attorney-as-superior-court-judge-now-nj-has-billboards-promoting-islam

cair-wants-you-to-praise-new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-for-bowing-down-to-islam

looks-like-nj-governor-chris-christie-is-deeper-in-bed-with-the-islamists-than-we-suspected

shocker-new-jersey-transit-worker-fired-for-burning-a-quran-at-ground-zero-last-911-is-rehired-thanks-to-the-aclu-yes-the-aclu

nj-gov-chris-christies-islamist-problem-makes-him-a-darling-of-the-left-wing-media

FBI Cut All Ties with CAIR. Does Chris Christie have a Hearing Problem? Call His Office to say Cancel CAIR-Sponsored CAMP on 4/02/11 in Plainsboro, NJ

more-dirt-about-new-jersey-governor-chris-christies-ties-to-terrorist-connected-islamists

the-problem-with-nj-governor-chris-christie-nominating-a-muslim-for-superior-court-judge-isnt-what-you-think-it-is

nj-governor-chris-christie-nominates-a-muslim-lawyer-who-represented-islamic-terrorist-suspects-for-superior-court-judgeship

I Believe in Protecting Louisiana’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms

I Believe in Protecting Louisiana’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms

If Louisiana already has a provision in its Constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms, why is the Louisiana legislature considering an amendment to replace it?

That’s a good question, and it has a very good answer.

The amendment, Senate Bill 303, would amend the Constitution to read: “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

That’s an important change, and I support it, because the current provision in our state Constitution has two major problems.

First, the Louisiana courts have said that any laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms under the current Constitution are subject only to a “rational basis” test to determine if those laws are constitutional. That is the lowest judicial standard and almost every law taking away firearms rights, except perhaps an outright ban on all guns, would be held constitutional.

The new amendment fixes that. It declares, using the language of constitutional law, that the right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental” and that any laws restricting that right are subject to “strict scrutiny.” That is the highest level of protection of a right, just like the protection given to our fundamental right of free speech. This amendment will give Louisianans the strongest constitutional guarantee of firearms rights in the country.

Second, the current Constitution contains an exception which flatly states that laws can be passed “to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.” What’s wrong with that? It is unnecessary, far too broad, and even dangerous to our rights. Most states regulate carrying of concealed weapons without such an exception. Louisiana now has a good, workable system of laws for concealed carry. Concealed carry permits for handguns must be issued to law-abiding citizens.

Concealed carry is allowed in one’s home and business premises without a permit. But the current constitutional provision allows concealed carry permits to be abolished entirely. Having concealed firearms for self-defense in your home or business could also be outlawed—even if you were under attack. The paramount right of Louisianans to defend their lives and loved ones should not be jeopardized by an “exception” that invites abuse.

The new, stronger amendment would not allow felons or the mentally ill to obtain firearms. Felons and other dangerous people are already forbidden to possess firearms under federal law. The proposed amendment would not allow people to carry firearms into public or private schools or other sensitive places. Those kinds of restrictions have been upheld by the courts, and they would continue to be upheld under the new amendment.

So why is the amendment necessary at this moment? Recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court recognized that right by only a 5-4 majority vote. That balance could tip the other way by a single new appointment to the Court. If Second Amendment protections vanish or are cut back, we must rely on our own state Constitution to protect our rights. But our current constitution, because of those “rational basis” interpretations by judges, affords almost no protection to the right to keep and bear arms.

So we need to strengthen it now. We need to remove that excessively broad loophole relating to concealed carry. We need to let the judges know that our Constitution, after this amendment, will say unmistakably what we have always known it must mean: that the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental, and cannot be taken away in the future by the whim of a transient majority of legislators or judges.

The good people of Louisiana have a long tradition of responsible firearms use for lawful defense of self, family, and home, and for hunting and sport shooting. When this amendment comes before the voters in the fall, it will give us a unique opportunity to pass on those proud traditions, strong and undiminished, to future generations.

Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:

Friday, May 18, 2012

53,000 Dead Voters Found in Florida

I have learned that Florida election officials are set to announce that the secretary of state has discovered and purged up to 53,000 dead voters from the voter rolls in Florida.

How could 53,000 dead voters have sat on the polls for so long?  Simple. Because Florida hadn’t been using the best available data revealing which voters have died.  Florida is now using the nationwide Social Security Death Index for determining which voters should be purged because they have died.

Here is the bad news.  Most states aren’t using the same database that Florida is.  In fact, I have heard reports that some election officials won’t even remove voters even when they are presented with a death certificate.  That means that voter rolls across the nation still are filled with dead voters, even if Florida is leading the way in detecting and removing them.  [emphasis mine]

But surely people aren’t voting in the names of dead voters, the voter fraud deniers argue.  Wrong.

Keaton

Consider the case of Lafayette Keaton.  Keaton not only voted for a dead person in Oregon, he voted for his dead son.  Making Keaton’s fraud easier was Oregon’s vote by mail scheme, which has opened up gaping holes in the integrity of elections.  The incident in Oregon just scratches the surface of the problem.  Massachusetts and Mississippi are but two other examples of the dead rising on election day.

Florida should be applauded for taking the problem seriously, even if Eric Holder’s Justice Department and many state election officials don’t.

Related: League of Women Voters Aren’t Nonpartisan.

Also Related: From July 2010, Lawlessness at the DOJ: Voting Section Told Not To Enforce Purging the Dead or Ineligible from Voting Rolls

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

House report urges Justice Dept. to cut ties with CAIR

I wish I knew what it would take to get the people of America to open their eyes and get on board about the Muslim movement.  As I talk with people about this false belief system and how it's trying to strip Americans of their freedoms and rights, I'm just totally amazed with the response I get back.  People are more concerned with the trillions of dollars of debt we're in.  They're worried about how high the gas prices are.  They're worried about the up coming elections.  They're worried about things that won't be a problem when the Muslims get their Sharia law into our judicial system.  The problems we are now 'concerned' about won't mean a thing.

But people have heard of 'religion' for so long and about all the religions there are, they no longer want to hear about that sort of 'stuff'.  More people are giving up on God (Jehovah) because they haven't seen Him or heard Him and therefore He just doesn't exist.  {Talk about some people being surprised when the last chapter comes to completion.}

A couple of things that should be understood is that 1) Islam is NOT a religion, it's a theocracy/political ideaology.  2) Islam is NOT a race.  And yet, the administration of this Country bows to the law suits and whinning these people do in regards to their civil rights being violated or their religious views being attacked.  They have NO grounds for any of these complaints, legally, but our President and his administration gives them a platform for their complaining.

So low and behold, who is it that these Muslims go to when they want their civil rights restored and the attacks on Islam stopped?  A group called CAIR.  That would be the Council on American Islamic Relations.  From the title of this group one would think it's an organization that mediates between the Muslims and the American Government.  Actually it's an organization that takes money and sends it to terrorists groups to support their efforts in taking over America as well as the whole world.

Read what follows and be thankful that at least some government officials are on our side.  This Muslim movement has to be stopped and the sooner the better.  A real tradjedy happening right now in our United States is in New Jersey.  It seems Gov. Chris Christie is giving in to these people and has appointed some of these terrorists into his administration.  Just as Obama has appointed several into his.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Department of Justice is being encouraged to follow in the footsteps of the FBI in cutting off all non-investigative ties to the country’s largest Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). 

The Fiscal Year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill, which passed the House on Wednesday, contains in its Committee Report (a separate public document that spells out how agencies are expected to spend the money allocated to them) a recommendation that Attorney General Eric Holder follow in the FBI’s footsteps and sever ties with CAIR:

Liaison partnerships.—The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case in which the Holy Land Foundation was found guilty of material support of a terrorist organization. The committee acknowledges the attorney general’s refusal to attend certain meetings knowing that CAIR officials would be present, as indicated in testimony before the committee on February 28, 2012. The committee understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has an existing policy prohibiting its employees from engaging in any formal non-investigative cooperation with CAIR. The committee encourages the attorney general to adopt a similar policy for all department officials.

In January 2009, the FBI ended its relationship with CAIR and its affiliates across the country due to the conviction of those involved in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding trial, in which CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf, the bill’s sponsor, explained to The Daily Caller that with the FBI’s policy already in place it makes sense for DOJ to follow suit.

“The FBI has that policy now, and I think it’s a good policy — they were an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. We also commend the attorney general for not meeting with them,” Wolf said. “We think it ought to be a policy. If the FBI has that policy, I think the entire Justice Department should have it.”

The DOJ declined to comment about the recommendation, though Wolf explained that they will likely apply the policy. (RELATED: Full coverage of the Justice Department)

“I expect they will comply [with the recommendation],” Wolf said. “I’d be surprised if they didn’t comply.”

The committee report went on to advise the FBI that they adopt similar policies with other groups associated with terrorism:

Liaison partnerships.—The committee supports the FBI’s policy prohibiting any formal non-investigative cooperation with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and continues to expect the FBI to report to the committee regarding any violations of this policy. The committee also encourages the FBI to adopt similar policies, where appropriate, with regard to other individuals and organizations identified as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism-related cases.

The appropriations bill funds the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, NASA, National Science Foundation and related agencies for the coming fiscal year, with an amount totaling $51.1 billion.

CAIR did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/house-report-urges-justice-dept-to-cut-ties-with-cair/#ixzz1uxtl6CHc

Homeland Security stalls Florida voter clean-up effort

Well of course Janet (Napolitano) is going to slow down the process of validating these non-citizens.  It's well known that the Democrats will do anything to win an election, even if it means having illegal aliens voting for them.  Instead of being a help to Florida, or any other state wanting to use the SAVE database, Janet and her liberal buddies are going to jack those folks around as long as they can.
Janet is just like Eric (Holder) in that she could care less about anything honest being done to make our voting citizens more assured that the vote they cast is not being wiped out by a vote from someone not registered to vote.  After all, it's a known fact that Obama had thousands of votes cast for him by 'dead' people and people voting multiple times.  His favorite organization, ACORN, got behind him and helped supply illegal votes for his election by thousands.
And so now, Janet Napolitano is helping her massa by doing her best not to help clear Florida's voter's registry of illegal voters.  
Two voters cast their ballots in a west Miami fire station, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012, during the Republican primary election. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)
The Department of Homeland Security is stonewalling Florida’s effort to clean up its voting rolls 12 years after George W. Bush won the state’s electoral votes by a razor-thin margin.
The state asked DHS in September to check the citizenship of 180,000 registered people who have Florida driver licenses but may not be citizens, Chris Cate, communications director for the Florida Department of State, told The Daily Caller.
Florida’s stalled request comes amid efforts by Democratic legislators and advocates to stop popular and court-approved voter-identification laws. The Democrats argue that the laws and related procedures are intended to keep black and Latino voters from casting ballots.  [Never once do they say anything about it being done to remove 'dead' voters or illegal voters.]
Obama’s Department of Justice has also sued to stop several states’ voter-identification laws, while Democrats protest voting-reform efforts in a number of other states.
The administration’s stalling has been challenged by Florida Republican Rep. Jeff Miller.
“Both the law and department policy requires [the DHS] to provide access to the [Systematic Alienation Verification for Entitlements] SAVE program within a reasonable time. … Please advise me on the status of the department’s decision on the state’s request immediately,” Miller wrote in a May 9 letter sent to DHS chief Janet Napolitano.
“We’d like to give them a chance to respond. … A couple of weeks should be enough,” a staff member for Miller, who is chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, told TheDC.
But Florida is pressing ahead with the voter checks.
“We’re still in the early stages of going through the 180,000 names, so we don’t know the extent to which there will be non-citizens [still] on the voter rolls” in November, Cate told TheDC.
So far, his office has identified 2,600 people who may not be citizens and has begun the process of asking them to verify their citizenship.
State officials are also reviewing the voting rolls to find additional people who may not be citizens and who are included on the list of 180,000 possible non-citizens that have been identified by Florida’s driving license records.
“When you have an ineligible voter on the rolls, you run the risk of diminishing someone else’s vote,” Cate said.
“We take pride in the elections we conduct, and we want to improve the integrity of our elections to the full extent we can, [so] we’re very sensitive to any scenario that might diminish the vote of Floridians,” he added.
In 2004, Bush won the state — and the presidency — after a very contentious vote count that prompted much criticism of Florida’s election process.
But Bush’s extremely narrow lead of a few hundred votes was validated by a subsequent count conducted by establishment media outlets, including The New York Times. Roughly six million ballots were cast in the state.
Under Florida’s rules, the state can strike people off the rolls if they don’t confirm their citizenship after a multi-stage public process.
But the process would be greatly improved and accelerated if DHS would confirm the citizenship of people on its voter rolls, Cate said.
“There is not a single state or federal database of all U.S. citizens that would allow us to check the [would-be voters’] citizenship status … [and] we have been told the best database that exists is the DHS ‘SAVE’ database,” he said.
The SAVE database holds a list of immigrants who have been granted citizenship.
“Removing an ineligible voter from the rolls is something we have a responsibility to do every year,” Cate told TheDC.
“This is not a political issue for us. This is about our mission to conduct fair and accurate elections.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/dhs-stalls-florida-voter-checks/#ixzz1uxj6KeYU
Enhanced by Zemanta



Cate Edwards claimed no U.S. citizenship, avoided jury duty | The Daily Caller

Cate Edwards claimed no U.S. citizenship, avoided jury duty | The Daily Caller


By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
The daughter of disgraced former North Carolina Democratic Sen. John Edwards claimed she wasn’t a U.S. citizen to get out of jury duty in early 2011, court records The Daily Caller obtained show.



According to those records, Cate Edwards was excused from jury duty on Jan. 7, 2011 in Orange County, North Carolina because she was considered a non-citizen of that county. Additionally, a comment included by a court clerk’s office staffer states that the reason for Cate Edwards’ excusal was that she was not a citizen of the United States of America.

James Stanford, the clerk of the Superior Court for Orange County, told The Daily Caller that such a claim of non-citizenship originates with the “person who’s actually been summoned for jury duty.” That means, in this case, Cate Edwards made the claim herself.

“They would indicate to the clerk’s office that they are not citizens of the county of Orange, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not a citizen of the state of North Carolina — just that they’re not a citizen of Orange County,” Stanford said in a phone interview.

But, Stanford said, when one of his clerk’s office staffers adds information into the “amplifying remarks” column – like the comment added about how Cate Edwards was “Not [a] Us Citizen” – he said he would “have to assume that’s a representation that was made to the clerk’s office [by the person who was summoned for jury duty] that they were not a United States citizen.”

Cate’s father, former Sen. John Edwards, is in the midst of a highly publicized trial over whether he embezzled campaign funds from his 2008 presidential bid to pay living expenses for his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

A Harvard-educated attorney, Cate has been her father’s most visible public supporter and often accompanies him to his court appearances. At one point in the trial, Cate left the courtroom in tears after a former Edwards aide testified that Edwards’ late wife Elizabeth, then fighting breast cancer, confronted the candidate over his affair, tore her shirt off in a Raleigh airport hangar, and said, “You don’t see me anymore.”

To verify that the jury duty excusal records do in fact refer to the same Cate Edwards who is the daughter of the former Senator, TheDC compared the address listed for her on court records to her voter registration information and her father’s voter registration information.

The address listed for former Sen. John Edwards and his daughter Cate Edwards on official Orange County North Carolina voter rolls is the same address listed for the Cate Edwards who was excused from jury duty in early 2011 for claiming she wasn’t a U.S. citizen.
     [Doesn't that make her a 'citizen of the City, County, and State??  Isn't that the way politicians get around being a 'resident' so they can run for political office??  She needs to be disbarred and her license's revoked, for practicing law.  As a Harvard graduate you'd think she would know that little legalism.]

Cate Edwards didn’t immediately respond to TheDC’s request for comment.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/records-cate-edwards-claimed-she-wasnt-a-u-s-citizen-to-get-out-of-jury-duty/#ixzz1uxQyxQvv