"Thousands" of jihadists in the UK

from Jihad Watch

Tiny Minority of Extremists™ Update: where are all these thousands of jihadists? In what circles do they move? How many of their fellow Muslims among the Vast Majority of Peaceful Moderates™ know about their activities and have reported them to British police? If they haven't, why not?

Is anyone in the British government even asking these questions?

"UK militants back Jihad according to leaked report," from ITN, November 8:

Thousands of Islamist militants in the UK are actively supporting jihadist activities at home and abroad, according to a leaked Government document.

The secret report states that Britain will remain "a high-priority target" for international terrorists aligned with al Qaida for the foreseeable future.

And it warns that a network of extremist cells exists in the UK, with the main concentrations in London, Birmingham and Luton.

The document - marked "restricted" - was reportedly drawn up by the intelligence branch of the Ministry of Defence, MI5 and Special Branch.

The threat from Islamist extremists is "diverse and widely distributed" and the number of terrorists in Britain is "difficult to judge", states the report.

But it cites estimates from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre that there are "some thousands of extremists in the UK committed to supporting jihadi activities, either in the UK or abroad".

And it states: "For the foreseeable future the UK will continue to be a high-priority target for international terrorists aligned with al Qaida.

"It will face a threat from British nationals, including Muslim converts, and UK-based foreign terrorists, as well as terrorists planning attacks from abroad."...

That Didn't Take Long... Obama Surrenders To Russia

by Gateway Pundit

Earlier this week Russia warned the US about the planned US missile defense pact with Poland.

Today Obama surrendered.

He may not be in office but Barack Obama already backed down on his commitment to Poland to go ahead with a missile defense system.
The BBC and LGF reported:

US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says.

He was speaking after Polish President Lech Kaczynski's office said a pledge had been made during a phone conversation between the two men.

But Mr Obama's foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, denied this.

Russia opposes the US scheme and has announced plans to deploy missiles on Poland's border as a counter-measure.

I am afraid we are going to see more of this in the years to come.

Obama and our coming constitutional crisis

I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.

~ Obama's paternal grandmother

Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution.

~ Philip Berg, petitioner – Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. (2008)

As President-elect Barack Obama ascends to the presidency of the United States, there still remains a looming cloud above his head like the sword of Damocles. If and when that sword will fall plunging America into a constitutional crisis depends on a number of desperate and remarkable variables.

Before I get into these variables, let's examine what the Constitution says. What are the requirements to become president? Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that a president must:

• be a natural born citizen of the United States;
• be at least 35 years old;
• have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.

I know there are those who say Obama has produced an authentic birth certificate and posted it on his website, but experts and amateurs alike quickly found numerous errors in that document and deemed it a forgery (and a bad one at that).

Philip J. Berg, a Democratic operative and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, has assumed the tragic role of Prometheus, ascended Mount Olympus, the abode of Zeus, and has launched a one-man campaign to force Obama to verify his U.S. citizenship by suing the senator, the Democratic

National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, to verify that indeed he is worthy to be president of the United States by producing a real birth certificate.

Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship cited in an earlier article by WND news editor Drew Zahn:

• The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;
  
  
• The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;
  
  
• The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;
  
  
• The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.
  
  
• The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states."Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."
  
  
• The claim could not be verified by WND inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;
  
  
• Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.

Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg's lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama's U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, "The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy."

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick's reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg's complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn't have the "standing" to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn't bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg's complaint is not "concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury" is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick's outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn't have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unless and until Obama's citizenship question is definitively put to rest, then the proverbial sword of Damocles will continue to dangle precariously over his head and America will face 50 lawsuits from all 50 states demanding that President Barack Obama prove that he is an authentic American citizen according to the U.S. Constitution.

Saudi-Syria fallout to hit U.S.?

BEIRUT – Saudi Arabia's problems with Syria may be putting the U.S. on a collision course in northern Lebanon that could put it in the untenable position of supporting Sunni Salafists that are linked to al-Qaida, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

According to highly placed Lebanese sources, Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar bin Sultan, chief of the Saudi National Security Council, is helping to finance the U.S.-backed Future Movement of Saad Hariri, whose militias are instigating fighting against the Shiite Alawite minority in northern Lebanon.

The increased fighting centers around the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli, which is occupied predominantly by Sunnis and Christian and Alawite minorities.

But Salafists, who also are Sunnis, are allied with the Future Movement, according to these sources. In addition, the Shiite Hezbollah

has aligned itself with the Alawite minority.

Among the Sunnis involved is the Fatah al Islam group, said to be associated with al-Qaida. Last year, the Fatah al Islam engaged in a deadly fight for months with the Lebanese Armed Forces. From one perspective, the Fatah al Islam is the combined outgrowth of a Sunni Islamist revival sweeping Lebanon and the region.

The Future Movement, led by Hariri, son of the late former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri who was assassinated in February 2005, is part of the Lebanese government majority led by Sunni Prime Minister

Fuad Siniora.

The sources have told WND that alleged Sunni, Saudi-instigated fighting against the Shiites in fact is pushing the U.S. into a confrontation with the Syrians.

Such a development would thrust the U.S. into a position that could adversely affect U.S. Middle East policy, considering the increasing presence of the Russian military at the nearby Syrian port of Tartus.

The Saudi backing of the Sunni Future Movement also could push the U.S. into a confrontation with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

The Alawite minority in northern Lebanon is part of the same tribe to which Syrian President Bashar Assad belongs.

In response to the fighting in northern Lebanon, Syria has positioned some 10,000 troops on the Syrian-Lebanese border poised to come to the assistance of the Alawite minority.

The concern is that Syria may try to reoccupy northern Lebanon.

Court: Quit saying 'illegal aliens'

But critics say, 'Let's call drug dealers undocumented pharmacists'

---

Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor stirred up a hornet's nest by endorsing a demand from the Hispanic Bar Association to censor words and phrases such as "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigrants" and substitute "foreign nationals" in court documents.

Then, when a blog at Judicial Watch reported on the instructions, court officials threatened to sue the government-watchdog organization, prompting its release of a statement defending the story.

The original report said the chief justice had agreed to forward to judges the Hispanic Bar's demands to alter the language in court opinions and documents.

Judicial Watch said, "In a strongly worded letter to the chief justice, Los Abogados' [Hispanic Bar Association] president says attaching an illegal status to a person establishes a brand of contemptibility, creates the appearance of anti-immigrant prejudice and tarnishes the image of courts as a place where disputes may be fairly resolved."

The letter, according to Judicial Watch, criticized the state's high court for using the term "illegals" in at least two opinions and the term "illegal aliens" in dozens of others.

Judicial Watch said the letter concludes with a list of acceptable and unacceptable terms relating to illegal immigration. Among the terms the group wants banned are "immigration crisis,' "immigration epidemic,' "open borders advocates", "anchor babies" and "invaders."

Acceptable terms are "foreign nationals," "unauthorized workers" and "human rights advocates," Judicial Watch said.

The report almost immediately was followed with a response from the court, Judicial Watch reported.

"The Arizona Supreme Court has threatened to sue Judicial Watch for revealing that its chief justice agreed to enforce a Hispanic Bar Association demand to ban the terms 'illegal' and 'aliens' in all of the state’s courtrooms," the organization said in a statement late today.

"In a threatening phone call to Judicial Watch today, a spokesperson for Arizona's Supreme Court denied that Chief Justice McGregor had banned anything and accused Judicial Watch of 'slander.' Judicial Watch, however, stands by its story," the organization said.

The letter, to which Judicial Watch provided a link, said McGregor took several steps to notify judges of the concerns raised by the bar association.

She confirmed she had provided copies of the demands to judges and concluded, "If Judge Song Ong has not already done so, I request that the Commissionon on Minorities in the Judiciary consider whether any further distribution of your request would be helpful."

The request from the Hispanic Bar Association, signed by Los Abogados President Lizzette Alameda Zubey and president-elect Salvador Ongaro, said it wanted McGregor to communicate "these points to all judges and court employees in Arizona so that none of these hurtful terms are used in Arizona court documents or proceedings again.

"Putting this in greater perspective, even a convicted murderer is never referred to as an 'illegal' because of that conviction," the bar association letter said.

"Those that use the terms as an instrument of hate know that it insults and incenses those that oppose their views," said the letter, which cited several court document uses of the terms.

"We believe it essential to ongoing public dialogue to eliminate hate speech in all forms and to strip away all vestiges of perceived bias," the group said.

It said acceptable terms are "undocumented immigrants," "foreign nationals," "persons without legal immigration status," "unauthorized workers" and "alleged or suspected undocumented immigrants."

However, the association said "illegals," "illegal aliens," "aliens," "resident or non-resident aliens," "illegal immigrants," "scratchbacks or wetbacks," "armies of immigrants," "invaders," "reconquistadores" and "anchor babies" should be banned.

On the Judicial Watch forums page the arguments included the technical.

"Yes, the concept of citizen implies that it can be legal or illegal, based upon the laws that confer citizenship in any particular jurisdiction. If members of a Supreme Court do not understand this, we are in a lot of trouble as a nation. God help us," wrote Gianni.

Others exhibited less patience with the request.

"If the Hispanic Bar likes that, then let's call drug dealers undocumented pharmacists, and home robbery suspects physical property adjusters," said the commenter. "I know a moron when I hear one."

They also got personal, "She must have gotten her law degree out of a box of Cracker Jacks," said another. "Calling an ILLEGAL ALIEN an 'undocumented immigrant,' 'unauthorized worker,' 'or 'human rights advocate' not only is nondescriptive of the individual, it is the same as calling a burglar an 'unwanted house guest.' Get real!"

"How about felonious foreigner," suggested another.

The disappearing male

Studies show rise in birth defects, infertility among men

by Sonja Puzic

Are males becoming an endangered species?

That's the question scientists and researchers have been pondering since alarming trends in male fertility rates, birth defects and disorders began emerging around the world.

More and more boys are being born with genital defects and are suffering from learning disabilities, autism and Tourette's syndrome, among other disorders.

Male infertility rates are on the rise and the quality of an average man's sperm is declining, according to some studies.

But perhaps the most disconcerting of all trends is the growing gender imbalance in many parts of heavily industrialized nations, where the births of baby boys have been declining for many years.

What many scientists are calling the most important -- and least publicized -- issue surrounding the future of the human race will be highlighted in a CBC documentary that features two Windsor researchers who've studied the phenomenon. ....