I’ve always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.

For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That’s why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.

Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress , but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department ’s legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama , the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."

Mr. Obama ’s paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to "fundamentally transform America." He has not proposed improving America - he is intent on changing its most essential character. The words he has chosen to describe his goals are neither the words nor the motivation of just any liberal Democratic politician. This is the utopian, or rather dystopian, reverie of a dedicated Marxist - a dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House .

Because of the power he wields over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and even health care, his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today’s single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.

Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.

Mr. Obama ’s actions, not just his words, show the threat he poses. A level of government deficit spending unheard of since World War II and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see represent an unacceptable threat to our economic security and our children’s future. Mr. Obama could be the first president to guarantee that the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than their parents.

Mr. Obama ’s most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans’ desire to negotiate a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.

There is no higher duty of the federal government and our elected representatives than to protect our nation from invasion. Multiple reports and testimony before Congress by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials have stated that a porous border with Mexico is "a path" terrorists will use if they can. Some would-be terrorists, including at least one associated with Hezbollah, already have. Recent reports of contacts between Hezbollah and Mexican drug cartels make it all but certain that terrorists intent on destroying us will come across our southwestern border. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the administration to do everything in its power to keep Americans safe. Our safety is not a bargaining chip for another amnesty - or for any other political objective whatsoever.

Mr. Obama ’s refusal to live up to his own oath of office - which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion - requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama .

Tom Tancredo is a former member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and five-term member of Congress from Colorado. He serves as chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

‘Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.’  - Ronald Reagan

‘The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’-Ronald Reagan

‘The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.’  -Ronald Reagan

‘Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the   U.S. was too strong.’- Ronald Reagan

‘I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.’ -Ronald Reagan

‘The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.’- Ronald Reagan

‘Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.’- Ronald Reagan

‘The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.’ - Ronald Reagan

‘It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.’- Ronald Reagan

‘Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it’ - Ronald Reagan

‘Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.’- Ronald Reagan

‘No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.’- Ronald Reagan

‘If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.’-Ronald Reagan

See, I have these missing pieces that are holding  me up, and I was wondering, Sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out.  You know, no big deal, just some loose  ends and things.

Hey, you have a nice place here!  The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says, boy, she wishes she had digs like this, you know?  Is that painting real?   Really?  Wow!

I saw something like that in a museum  once. Oh, sorry Sir.  I didn’t mean to get off the track.

So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some  details, I will get right out of your way.  I want to close this  case and maybe take the wife to  Coney Island or something.   Ever been to Coney Island Sir?  No?  I didn’t think  so…

Well, listen, anyway, I can’t seem to get some  information I need to wrap this up.  These things seem to either be  "Not released" or "Not available."  I’m sure it’s just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things  are I have them written down here somewhere — oh wait. I’ll just read  it to you.

Could you  please help me find these things, Sir?

1.  Occidental   College records — Not released
2.  Columbia   College records — Not released
3.  Columbia Thesis paper –  "Not available"
4.  Harvard  College records — Not  released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical  records — Not released
7.  Illinois State Senate schedule — Not  available
8. Your  Illinois State Senate records — Not  available
9. Law practice client list — Not released
10. Certified Copy  of original Birth certificate — Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper  Certification of Live Birth — Not released
12. Record of your baptism –  Not available
13. Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney? … Insurance Fraud?
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?
15. Why were you getting "foreign student aid" as a college student?
16. Which countries "passport" did you have when you visited Pakistan in 1981?

Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can’t seem to find any  articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor  at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me,  Sir?

Oh, but hey –  listen!  I know you’re busy!  If this is too much for you right now  — I mean — tell you what.  I’ll come back tomorrow.  Give you some  time to get these things together, you know?  I mean, I know you’re busy.   I’ll just let myself out.  I’ll be back tomorrow.  And the day after  …

What’s that Mr. President?  Who wants to know these  things?
We the People of the United States of America  ! You know, the ones that  vote.

Most of us know someone who, as is said, will lie about what he or she had for breakfast.  For those who don’t know such a stranger to veracity, meet the current President of the United States.  Now you know one.

The late, lamented columnist and language explorer, William Safire, made the term “congenital liar” famous this very week (January in 1996, although it seems like only yesterday that he so aptly applied the label to Hillary Clinton, then merely First Lady, then merely lying about penny ante personal corruption issues.

Compared to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is a rank amateur.  He out lied her to become the Democratic Presidential nominee.  In multiple ways, on multiple subjects, on multiple occasions, he told the biggest lie of all – that he is someone he is not – to become President.

This week, what is likely his most transparent lie is laid out for all to see, even liberal children who will need counseling to deal with the fallen god of their parents and teachers.

How transparent is this latest lie?  Well, as documented by Andrew Breitbart in this video , eight times President Obama said that his health care reform plan would be, could be, should be broadcast on C-SPAN.  Thus would both the process and product of his beneficent vision for the future of our health care be open and understandable, the epitome of representative government striding from the shadows into the light, even Page 1139, Part 6 (z, 73).

All those campaign pledges, promises, assurances were but cons, calculated to head off the Sudden Legislative Death Syndrome that buried HillaryCare before it even got out of the crib, largely because of its secrecy, its lack of transparency.

Not that transparency has been any working part of the development of ObamaCare until now, but the House bills, the Senate bills, with their endless CBO scorings of the unscorable, have been but rehearsals.

This week, the real Show premieres, and Impresario Obama well understands that ObamaCare cannot survive public and professional scrutiny.

When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says, as he did over the holidays, that he can’t find a Member of Congress who can explain it, then the sure bet is that the public still hasn’t a clue regarding specifics, or the full extent of the corruption therein, and knowledge cannot be allowed before passage.

Thus, when Brian Lamb, Chairman and CEO of C-SPAN, wrote the President and Congressional Leaders , asking “that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage,” what was the President’s response, despite all prior promises to the contrary?

The President on Tuesday held a White House meeting with Senate and House Democratic leaders, details secret, to plot proceeding as fast as possible, in secret, with negotiations among only White House and Senate and House Democratic leaders to avoid conventional procedures and “ping pong” ObamaCare to passage.

Then, to make sure all Americans get the message, the President on Wednesday held another White House meeting with Senate and House Democratic leaders, details secret, to plot proceeding as fast as possible, in secret, with negotiations among only White House and Senate and House Democratic leaders to avoid conventional procedures and “ping pong” ObamaCare to passage.

The Senate version of ObamaCare, corruptly manipulated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get his required 60 Christmas Eve votes, is now almost assuredly the prototype that will be used, in secret, to develop the final bill.

The Senate bill is a betrayal of principles, both right and left, but its gigantic negative impact will be felt mostly by the unsuspecting middle.  The Senate bill is a low water mark of financial deceit, measured in trillions, and a hallmark of Congressional corruption, which can only grow, as the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger shout for defeat of the bill – or at least to get their fair share of the corruption.  In fact, the most honorable people to emerge from this catastrophe thus far are the people of Nebraska who are telling Senator Ben Nelson (see Walking Dead) to take his corruption and shove it, even if it would benefit them.

Transparency?  The President’s lies stand naked before you.  His health care “reform?”  The murkiest barrel of Washington crap yet to be poured on your head.  That cannot be cleansed, but it can still be defeated, most likely by a handful of Democrats who smell the stench and wish it not to forever attach to them.  Find them, motivate them, and the President’s lies, the Congressional corruption, will stand for naught.

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.  In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies–led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ.  Failed presidents have one strong common trait– they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out.
Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party.  Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

But, Barack Obama is failing.  Failing big.  Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy  Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed.  Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of precedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months?  His poll ratings are in free fall.  In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage.  This truly is unbelievable.  What’s going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative.  No, not a narrative about himself.  He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else.  But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us.  He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us.  All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are.  Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.
But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task–all contributory of course.  It’s that he’s not one of us.  And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper.
Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.
In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us–financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job.  Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012:
"For those of you I offended, I apologize.  For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too."
Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state–staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive.  An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year.  With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.
Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them.  The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.
Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money."
"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn’t own." - Unknown

The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was clearly timed to build momentum toward an agreement at the international conference on climate change that opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn’t act first on its own.

The price could be steep for both industry and consumers. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even many tens of billions of dollars — or shift to other forms of energy. ………. {enough said … garbage, garbage.}

………….

The current USA administration is really trying hard to socialize the USA. They have a big ass of themselves by announcing this "historic eap finding" which everyone in the world today’s know is a big joke.  Maybe next we will find out milk, vegatibles, water and similiar foods give out some poision and we need to quit eating …. says the Obama Administration.

What is the solution to this joke Administration … IMPEACHMENT !!!

We are getting what we deserve by allowing an illegible person to be president.  Kenya …. PLEASE take him back. You need his hope and change and we don’t want it.

Ray Holt

Is the U.S. government still serious about protecting Americans from the extreme violence of Islamofascism – or isn’t it?

• The Department of Homeland Security, created to defend the nation after the Sept. 11 Islamic terror attacks, has dramatically shifted its focus, earlier this year advising police nationwide to watch out for "right-wing extremists" – especially returning war veterans – supporting the Second Amendment, opposing abortion and illegal immigration, and promoting U.S. sovereignty and the Constitution.
• The U.S. Army ignored a mountain of absurdly obvious warning signs that Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan was a brainwashed, America-loathing jihadist sleeper agent just waiting to explode – yet it did absolutely nothing to avert the Fort Hood massacre of dozens of American soldiers.
• Five Gitmo terrorists – the worst of the worst, including confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who proclaims the government’s terror charges are a "badge of honor" – will be tried in civilian court in New York City, offering these mega-terrorists the worldwide stage they crave from which to spread their ideology, and opening up America’s terror-war secrets to discovery by the terrorists through their lawyers – all paid for by taxpayers.
• Dozens of Islamic terror training camps are operating right under the nose of law enforcement, not in some far-off land, but all across the USA!

What’s going on here? Does the government really care about national security anymore?

You’ll find out the answer to this and many other crucial questions in the explosive December issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled "SEE NO JIHAD, HEAR NO JIHAD, SPEAK NO JIHAD: Why the government and media seem oblivious to America’s rapid infiltration by a violent totalitarian movement."

More questions:

Why do you suppose, whenever there’s a terror attack on American soil, the FBI always announces immediately – before it could possibly know – that the massacre is not terror-related?

Why do the media concoct the most moronic explanations for terrorism – such as Time magazine blaming post traumatic stress disorder for Hasan’s Fort Hood rampage (even though he was never deployed in a war zone) or the Associated Press’s revelation that the shooter was "lonely"? Or why did the press advance six different theories to explain the terror reign of Beltway sniper John Muhammad, but not one mentioned jihad as a possible motive?

Why does President Obama take every opportunity to criticize America and fawn over Islam – even calling America "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world" and bowing obsequiously before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia? Meanwhile, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, who demonizes pro-lifers and war veterans as Tim McVeigh wannabes, appoints to her advisory council Kareem Shora, national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, whose officials have labeled deadly anti-U.S. jihadists as "heroes" and opposed referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Regular Americans understand the Islamofascist war that’s been declared on America. The government and media either don’t – or won’t.

This stubborn inability to come to grips with an exceedingly dangerous and determined political-military movement wrapped within a religion is explored as you’ve never seen it before in "SEE NO JIHAD, HEAR NO JIHAD, SPEAK NO JIHAD."

Issue highlights include:

• "Looking for terror in all the wrong places" by Joseph Farah
• "What’s behind America’s politically correct ‘love’ of Islam?" by David Kupelian
• "’Islamophobia’ was duly avoided at Fort Hood" by Robert Spencer
• "Political correctness: The jihadist’s best friend" by Jamie Glazov
• "You, Islam and the Stockholm syndrome" by David Kupelian, on how the "religion of peace" continues to spread, as it always has, "at the edge of a sword"
• "The U.S. military’s deadly denial," in which Col. Ralph Peters reveals the "dirty big secret in our Army"
• "Terror training camps on American soil" by Robert Spencer, on the dozens of communes teaching jihad throughout the U.S. under the nose of law enforcement
• "Military jihadists fill ‘every branch’" of the U.S. military – even Gitmo
• "How Saudis radicalized U.S. soldiers," the astonishing story of how thousands of American troops were converted to Islam by Saudis while protecting that kingdom from Saddam Hussein
• "CAIR speaker to Muslims: OK to attack Fort Bragg" – on the popular Muslim cleric who exhorted the Islamic faithful to target planes carrying the "82nd Airborne"
• "PC kills" – in which former Arab News broadcaster Brigitte Gabriel warns that American warriors can no longer be intimidated by fear of being accused of "discrimination."
• "Moderate, civil-rights group or sinister terror front?" And FBI agent says CAIR’s "offices have been a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters"
• "Belly of the beast" by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, who tell the hair-raising story of how 29-year-old Chris Gaubatz grew a beard, pretended to convert to Islam, and infiltrated the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations.
• "CAIR spent $160,000 to silence Michael Savage" by Art Moore
• "It’s radical Islam, stupid" by Steven Emerson, in which the renowned terror investigator says government and press blindness to dangerous Islamic subversion are now at an advanced stage
• "Meet White House adviser who supports Islamic law" by Art Moore, on Obama adviser Dalia Mogahed, who "shares the outlook of Islamists in Egypt, Pakistan"
• "Trial in New York a triumph for al-Qaida" by Roger Hedgecock, who argues that the Obama-Holder’ strategy underlying the controversial move is to "criminalize everyone connected with the Bush war on terror"
• "Separation of mosque and state" by William J. Federer

"Nothing demonstrates the national security myopia of the Obama administration better than its eagerness to see threats where none exist while being unwilling and unable to see those that are staring us in the face," said WND Editor Joseph Farah.

Added WND Managing Editor David Kupelian: "The evil of ‘political correctness’ – the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitists who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for – has to end. This issue of Whistleblower explains not only why, but how."

SPECIAL OFFER: For a limited time, subscribe to Whistleblower, renew your subscription or give a gift subscription for one year and you’ll get $10 off (pay $39.95 instead of the usual $49.95), plus you’ll receive a FREE, autographed, hardcover copy of the best-selling book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America" by P. Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry.

Based in part on a daring, six-month undercover penetration of the Council on American-Islamic Relations that resulted in the collection of thousands of pages of revealing documents as well as inside secrets, "Muslim Mafia" rips the veil off the largely unreported radical Islamic infiltration of the U.S.

EVEN BETTER OFFER: Subscribe, renew or give a gift subscription for two years and you’ll get a $10 discount on the already reduced two-year rate ($74.95 instead of the usual $84.95), and you’ll receive TWO gifts: a FREE hardcover, autographed copy of "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America," PLUS "The Essential Second Amendment Guide," the excellent new freedom book by Wayne LaPierre.

"You have a right to own a gun for defense of family and home," writes LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA. "You have a right to own a gun for hunting, shooting or collecting. You have the right to own a gun to break the chains of tyranny. Our Founding Fathers said it. Our Constitution guarantees it. Our courts affirm it. Our laws protect it. Yet there are politicians, bureaucrats and members of the media elite who want to trample our freedoms. They portray law-abiding gun owners as the members of some lunatic fringe. They attack us in the press and call us second-class citizens. This indispensable book contains battle-tested arguments and an arsenal of facts, figures and anecdotes that freedom advocates can use every day."

These special free book offers will end without notice and are good in the U.S. only.

You may also order a single copy of "SEE NO JIHAD, HEAR NO JIHAD, SPEAK NO JIHAD."

If you wish to order by phone, call our toll-free order line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266). $39.95
Discount Price $39.95

University outlines ‘re-education’ for those who hold ‘wrong’ views

A program proposed at the University of Minnesota would result in required examinations of teacher candidates on "white privilege" as well as "remedial re-education" for those who hold the "wrong" views, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The organization, which promotes civil liberties on the campuses of America’s colleges and universities, has dispatched a letter to University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks asking him to intervene to prevent the adoption of policies proposed in his College of Education and Human Development.

"The university’s general counsel should be asked to comment as soon as possible," said the letter from Adam Kissel, an officer with The FIRE. "If the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group achieves its stated goals, the result will be political and ideological screening of applicants, remedial re-education for those with the ‘wrong’ views and values, [and] withholding of degrees from those upon whom the university’s political reeducation efforts proved ineffective."

By any "non-totalitarian" standards, he wrote, the the plans being made so far by the school are "severely unjust and impermissibly intrude into matters of individual conscience."

Kissel wrote that it appears that the university "intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the ‘wrong’ beliefs and values – those who either do not have sufficient ‘cultural competence’ or those who the college judges will not be able to be converted to the ‘correct’ beliefs and values even after remedial re-education."

"These intentions violate the freedom of conscience of the university’s students. As a public university bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the university is both legally and morally obligated to uphold this fundamental right," he wrote.

WND messages left with the university requesting comment did not generate a response today.

"The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian is available now. Get your copy autographed and personalized (at no extra charge) – only from Shop.WND.com!

Among the issues discussed in the plans are requirements that teachers would be able to instruct students on the "myth of meritocracy" in the United States, "the history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values," and the "history of white racism."

The demands appear to be similar to those promoted earlier at the University of Delaware.

As WND reported, the Delaware university’s office of residential life was caught requiring students to participant in a program that taught "all whites are racist."

School officials immediately defended the teaching, but in the face of a backlash from alumni and publicity about its work, the school decided to drop the curriculum, although some factions later suggested its revival.

Click here to view the embedded video.

FIRE, which challenged the Delaware plan, later produced a video explaining how the institution of the university pushed for the teachings, was caught and later backed off:

Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten said the developing Minnesota plan would require teachers to "embrace – and be prepared to teach our state’s kids – the task force’s own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic."

She said the plan from the university’s Teacher Education
Redesign Initiative – a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained – "is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers’ lack of ‘cultural competence’ contributes to the poor academic performance
of the state’s minority students."

"The first step toward ‘cultural competence,’ says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize – and confess – their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi," she said.

"What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment?" she posed. "The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must ‘develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan.’"

The plan asks: "How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?"

The original correct answer was to have "a training session disguised as a thank you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year." The task force later edited itself to call for a required "training/workshop for all supervisors. Perhaps as part of an orientation/thank you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?"

"There was no deception planned or intended as may be implied in the use of the word [disguised]," a footnote said, "We have edited this to reflect our commitment to integrity in our work. This amendment was made 11/09/2009."

Nevertheless, FIRE’s concern included the apparent plan for demands that teachers "discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression."

Further, the letter noted, "the college in its proposal promises to start screening its applicants to make sure they have the proper ‘commitments’ and ‘dispositions.’"

"Here’s the kicker," Fire said in its report. "The college even realizes that its efforts to impose such a severe ideological litmus test may be unconstitutional." T

"FIRE urges you to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), which invalidated mandated allegiances to political ideologies at public schools," Kissel wrote for FIRE.

Writing for the court, Justice Robert H. Jackson declared: "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. "

This picture is from November 11, 2009 Veterans Day service. Everyone is saluting for some reason but, Guess Who?  … right, the Kenyon.

President Obama created a new presidential precedent when he bowed to the Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko Saturday.

No president of the United States in the more than 230 years since the country was founded in 1776 had ever bowed to a member of royalty. That was until Barack Obama’s presidency.

In April, President Obama bowed to the Saudi king during the G-20 meeting. At the time, Obama’s deferential bow was somewhat obscured, and the White House insisted that the president simply had leaned forward to shake the king’s hand.

But the president’s recent demonstration of royal deference to the Japanese emperor and empress suggests his earlier action was no aberration.

What should we make of this? Is it trivial to worry about what on its face could easily be interpreted as nothing more than a polite gesture by our president to respect the culture of a country?

America was founded on republican virtues — small “r,” that is. Like the French Republic, our nation does not recognize royalty or social rank, especially from officials of the republic.

The conduct of our president when he deals with foreign leaders is a serious matter. After all, he represents the American people and our Constitution.

Indeed, when President Obama bows before a foreign leader, the whole country bows with him.

It is difficult to grasp what President Obama’s motives are for bowing to foreign royalty (it would be nice if a reporter asked his press secretary Robert Gibbs why he does it).

But Obama’s motives do not really matter when we consider his behavior.

What matters is how the rest of the world will interpret his actions. When it comes to bowing before foreign leaders, there is a fine line between showing politeness and servility, between respect and weakness.

The United States leads the free world, and it goes without saying that our president as commander in chief is duty bound to protect the nation, and our allies by treaty. He should act in such a way that strengthens, not weakens, his position.

If we as American citizens wonder about how our president should act with foreign leaders when he meets with them in person, let us look to the history of the United States for guidance.

First, there is our cherished Constitution. When the Founding Fathers wrote it, they made abundantly clear their distaste of the hereditary forms of government that then dominated Europe.

Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

As the nation’s first constitutional leader, President George Washington set the tone. When it was proposed that he be called “His Highness the President of the United States of America and the Protector of Their Liberties,” Washington scoffed at the idea and demanded he be called simply, “Mr. President.”

No president better exemplified the republican virtues of the country than Thomas Jefferson, who had a purely American disdain for the pretensions of royal power which he believed were not legitimately derived from the people.

As he stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, power was not derived from bloodlines or royal coronations. Instead he argued that since “all men are created equal” a government should exist by “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Jefferson’s breezy indifference to the English monarchy was on display during his first days in the White House.

When the monarch’s new ambassador to the United States called for the first time to present his credentials he was not required to bow in front of the nation’s sovereign. In accordance with American values, he was assumed to be an equal, not a subject.

And so all he had to do was walk up to the White House and knock on the door (there were no guards or royal attendants).

Once he was beckoned inside, "a tall, high-boned man came into the room. He was dressed, or rather undressed, in an old brown coat, red waistcoat, old corduroy small-clothes much soiled, woollen hose, and slippers without heels. I thought him a servant,” said the visitor, “when General Varnum surprised me by announcing that it was the president."

According to the historian Henry Adams, the casual dress and easy-going manners of the new president were more important than they might seem at first glance.

“The seriousness of Jefferson’s experiments in etiquette,” Adams observed, “consisted in the belief that they were part of a political system which involved a sudden change of policy toward two great powers. [They] were but the social expression of an altered feeling which found its political expression in acts marked by equal disregard of usage.”

The British ambassador and other diplomats to the United States were offended by Jefferson’s refusal to follow the rules of the Old World, but that did not matter to Jefferson or his countrymen, who re-elected him with a resounding majority of popular support.

Jefferson understood that symbolism was important.

Another president who promoted this egalitarian ideal was Franklin Roosevelt.

In 1939 he invited the king and queen of England to visit the United States to bolster Anglo-American unity in the face of the growing fascist threat. Roosevelt never bowed to the king or queen — or any foreign royalty, for that matter.

On this special occasion, he simply demonstrated American hospitality.

As the British journalist Alistair Cooke detailed: “Roosevelt took them [the Royal couple] off to Hyde Park [his Hudson River estate] and drove his own hand-run automobile into the grounds and gave them a hot dog lunch. Well, this was a shocker to the British, but it’s the thing he would do. You see, he was a natural aristocrat, Roosevelt was. He didn’t have to put on airs.”

Roosevelt was also an American through and through and secure in his standing as a world leader.

There is a lesson here for President Obama, who appears intent on upending more than two centuries of American protocol. When he as president bows before a Saudi king or a Japanese emperor, he is sending an implicit message to millions of people around the world that the leader of the free world accepts the notion that some people are born to a higher rank than others.

But when our president stands up straight and extends his hand in friendship to all civilized nations, there is no danger, there is only opportunity — opportunity to communicate the values and spirit that Jefferson so eloquently conveyed to the rest of the world — “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Daniel Ruddy writes on politics and history. His upcoming book, “Theodore Roosevelt’s History of the United States” (Harper Collins), is due out in April 2010.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

I have always enjoyed watching the mainstream media play catch up. It put a smile on my face to see that ABC News was “courageous” enough to call Major Nidal M. Hasan a “Soldier of Allah”.

I have been glued to the coverage of the Ft Hood shootings because it shows so clearly why Barack Obama cannot handle the job of president. This is prime material for those of us demanding his impeachment .

Here is what ABC News reported:

"United States Army Major Nidal Hasan proclaimed himself a ’soldier of Allah’ on private business cards he obtained over the Internet and kept in a box at his apartment near Fort Hood, Texas.

Hasan, the alleged perpetrator of last week’s fatal shootings in Fort Hood, TX, was charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which can carry a sentence up to death or life imprisonment.

The cards make no mention of his military affiliation, but underneath his name he listed himself as SoA (SWT). SoA is commonly used on jihadist Web sites as the acronym for Soldier of Allah, according to investigators and experts who have studied such sites. SWT is commonly used by Muslims as an acronym for Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala, Glory to God.

‘He was making no secret of allegiances,’ said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant."

Funny, those of us following the FT Hood Jihad online learned the tale of the business card on the November 9th just after the shooting, thanks to the excellent work over at the blog Atlas Shrugs . I thank you Pamela Geller even if the arrogant “msm” types at ABC won’t reference your blockbuster early story.

Here is a column I penned for WorldNetDaily.com this morning on the whole Ft Hood bloodbath and what it says about BHO. I hope you enjoy it.

Jihad: Not in BHO’s lexicon

President Obama needs to throw his "Muslims can do no evil" rose-colored glasses off and see the real world. After listening to remarks by Barack Hussein Obama in Fort Hood, Texas, we were struck by how unemotional he is to tragedy. That is, Obama appears to be genuinely mourning the victims of the brutal jihad-inspired massacre that left 13 dead; but even now, he refuses to understand the gravity of the events and underlying reasons that lead to this terrorist attack on America’s valiant soldiers.

To Obama, terrorism and Islamist jihad are words stricken from his presidential lexicon. Without these words, you cannot adequately understand these brutal events on America’s homeland. Jihad flows from very specific Islamic teachings. This attack was a premeditated act of unspeakable terrorism, including the ritual pre-jihad (pre-attack) cleansing routine caught in part on convenience store cameras. Politically correct denial of Islam’s role in this bloodletting is foolishness and dangerous. And Obama and his administration will not be able to protect us against further similar acts if they continually refuse to admit reality.

What is the evidence to substantiate our claims?

The FBI knew that Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had communicated with a radical, extremist imam nearly a year before the attack. Yet, they wrongly determined the Army officer was no threat. Why was he categorized as a nonthreat? What official or officials cleared him? For what reason did they clear him?

We have learned from Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, that the Obama administration knew months ago that Hasan and the radical Yemeni imam "had exchanged 10 to 20 e-mails."

The imam influencing the Muslim shooter is Anwar al-Awlaki. He was released from a jail in Yemen last year. Al-Awlaki writes an anti-American blog that repeatedly denounces the war on terror. He presided at the mosque in Falls Church, Va., that Hasan attended, a center known for radical Islamic teaching.

When will these radical mosques on American soil be shut down? We expect radical pro-jihad teaching and Islamic-fascism in the Middle East, but we don’t need to accept it in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. We all enjoy freedom of religion, but not the freedom to incite others to violence, which is exactly what is happening in some American mosques.

The news that FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered "an internal investigation into whether the agency mishandled an ‘assessment’ of Hasan" is not enough. This investigation shouldn’t be handled internally. We need an independent investigation to assess why the Obama administration’s intelligence was so inadequate. No cover-ups to protect themselves this time. They’re paid to protect American citizens, not themselves.

Why was no FBI agent still tracking Islamic extremist Hasan’s activities and website postings?

Another scary thought. What other targets of investigations have been ruled nonthreats by these same officials who misjudged Hasan?

The Army is under intense pressure from liberals to become politically correct proponents of Islam and other so-called downtrodden minorities. Servicing pet causes of the Washington elite is not, nor has it ever been, the proper role of the military. They are a fighting machine with the very specific job of killing enemies. It is imperative that Americans be better informed about how the Obama administration is changing the military and allowing it to be infiltrated by Islamists.

A number of complaints were made to commanding Army officers about Hasan. What officer in the Army ignored those complaints and cleared Hasan for duty? Since Hasan is a psychiatrist, what was he saying to American soldiers when he counseled them?

According to the Washington Post, Hasan "warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid ‘adverse events,’ the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims. As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program. Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Clearly, the Army cannot say they didn’t know his views. The innocent souls murdered at Fort Hood will only rest in peace when the politically correct thought police who protected Hasan are court-martialed by the Army – and Obama trashes his rose-colored glasses while he is president.

Warm regards,

Floyd Brown

[This article about Islamic terrorism has been dedicated to those innocent and most patriotic American soldiers who lost their precious young lives in the recent jihadi rampage in Fort-Hood, Texas, due to the heinous practices of “politically correctness” stupid culture of American liberal apologists, only to save Islamic terrorists who are hell bent to convert or kill all Americans]

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. " (Blaise Pascal, mathematician, 1670)

By now any sane human being of 21^st century should realize that the religion of Islam is the main source of Islamic terrorism happening today around the world. But sadly, majority of gullible people (Muslim and non-Muslims) tend to ask questions: Does the Islam have anything to do with Terrorism? More precisely-does the Quran anyway responsible for Islamic terrorism, or Islamic suicide bombings? Some hypocritical western educated so called moderate Muslims now started to blame Hadiths (only) for Islamic terrorism/suicide bombings etc. and they are hypocritically claiming that Quran is totally innocent of this crime. These neo-islamists also claim that for all these Islamic suicide bombings and Islamic terrorism-it is the Sunnah (Ahadiths or traditions left by the Prophet Muhammad) which should be blamed, and not the Holy Quran. In this faulty or erroneous line of thinking they got their illusionary vision that, if hadiths could be dump then Islam will be very peaceful and innocent. This essay of mine has been dedicated to refute their (neo-islamists) dishonest claim about the source of Islamic terrorism.

Background story

Islam is a cultic (brotherhood or ummatic) religion by nature. The very theme of Islam is: Allah is the sole creator of everything on heaven and Earth and Muslims are His only legitimate and righteous people. Remaining all other people (Jews, Christians, Hindus etc.) are simply infidels and hated by Allah. A Muslim is a person who gets his/her life’s inspiration primarily from the Quran and secondarily from the Hadiths (the Sunna). The devout Muslims believe that life’s all solutions are contained in the Holy Quran and every good Muslim does believe by his heart that the Quran is the immutable divine words of Allah, infallible-unchangeable-eternal book of Allah, and they must follow this (Quran) word by word without any question. Following this line of thinking the Muslims believe that anyone who does not agree with them is kaffir and enemy of Islam; hence enemy of Allah. A Muslim must oppose his/her enemy and kill him/her by any means whenever the opportunity arises.

Historically, Muslims in Arabia always considered their political enemies/rivals as the kaffirs (filthy, unclean, non-believers and deserves death) and always wanted to eliminate them by force. They have also considered it a blessed or holy thing to kill their enemy (kaffirs) which will please Allah and consequently they will be rewarded in this life and hereafter. If we study early Islamic history (the reigns of most Islamic caliphs) we can readily learn that there had been always bloody disputes amongst various Muslim political groups in which tens of thousands of people were slaughtered in the name of their religion. In these political disputes always one group was calling other group kaffirs or enemy of Allah. They tried to justify killing their rivals by Islamic dictums. Even today, the same patterns of religious sectarian killings are going on in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and many other Islamic nations and these are glaring examples of my above claims. As always, each party calls them the party of Allah and opposite party is the party of kaffirs who should be killed. In these sectarian killings Muslims always get their inspiration primarily from the Quranic dictums supported by Hadiths. They never get inspiration from anything which is not in the Quran; or they never kill anybody having being inspired only from hadiths. Because Muslims always consider Quran as the nucleus of their faith and inspiration and hadiths are used only to support Quranic dictums.

Islamic terrorists do kill people by their Islamic fanatical zeal which is the prime source of motivation in their killing spree. And these inspirations always come from Holy Quran. Now, question is: dose the Quran contain such verses which can easily inspire/incite devout Muslims to kill people with impunity? Answer is there are plenty of such inciting or inspiring Quranic verses which can turn any simple/innocent minded devout Muslims into a killing monster. In fact, Quran is replete with such horrifically inciting dictums throughout the pages of Quran. Holy Quran repeatedly promised terrestrial handsome rewards for those who can kill kaffirs (enemy of Allah and His messenger) and dreadful punishing hellfire for those who refuse to kill kaffirs. Quran also incite followers to sacrifice their lives in order to kill kaffirs in exchange of much better and lucrative after life. In this line just one Quranic verse (9:111) is most attractive to those jihadis who desperately egger to achieve heavenly rearward of 72 virgins. Here is the master piece from Holy Quran:

Quran 9:111 : Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran.

In addition, a strong support and explanation to the verse: 9:111 was given by Merciful Allah by the following:

Quran 4:74: Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory (i.e. killed or be killed) - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).

Quran 4:95: Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons (sacrifice both life and wealth) than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.

Quran 3:169: Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; (Here Allah is saying that those jihadi who dies [commit suicide] is not dead but he will be living with Allah).

Now, I do not believe that anybody can have slightest doubt that the above clear invitations (from Allah) for the ardent fanatical believers can very easily convince the blind pukka (pure) Muslims to become a time-bomb (suicidal) in order to kill infidels/kaffirs-for the cause of Allah! The above verses (9:111; 3:169; 4:74; 4:95) are clearly ordering devout Muslims "to kill and be killed"; that is, Allah is teaching Muslims to sacrifice their own lives (to commit suicide) in His cause (Allah’s cause) in order to kill infidels (enemy of Allah). This single verse (9:111) very precisely justifies suicide bombing-the most lethal, most terrifying, most inhuman and most successful weapon majority Islamic terrorists are using today to kill Allah’s enemies. It is the perfect example (without any ambiguity) of suicidal method Allah has prescribed for devout Muslims. In the verse above (9:111) Islamic Allah clearly saying that: He (Allah) purchased life and property of believers in exchange of lustful and unimaginable lucrative heavenly pleasures for those who will die (commit suicide) for the cause (killing kaffirs) of Allah. After this, Muslims (ardent followers of the Quran) do not need any more killing instructions for their motivation to kill kaffirs/infidels. For good reason we can sum up that the Islamic God (Allah) is the most dangerous deity having unlimited vengeful, cruel, intolerant, intimidating and war-loving blood thirsty divine entity.

But this is not all! Quran is loaded with numerous (killing) verses ordering the ardent followers to carry out endless killing of infidels/unbelievers until only Muslims remain to inhibit this Earth owned by Islamic Allah. Here are some more examples:

Quran 8:39 : And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere (in this earth of Allah).

Quran 9:29 : Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Quran 3:85 : "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)."

Quran 9:39 : Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. [Allah's hatred to those who are reluctant to join Islamic jihad]

Quran 9:73 : O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

Quran 8:65: "O Apostle! Rouse the believers to fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred; if a 100, they will vanquish a 1,000 of the unbelievers…"

Quran 8:66: "…if there are a 100 of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish 200, and if a 1,000, they will vanquish 2,000 (two thousands) with the leave of Allah…” [This fabulous verse was written in the diary of Muhammad Ata the leader of 9/11 terrorists].

Quran 4:78: "Where ye are, death will find you, even if ye are in Towers, built up strong and tall" (Perhaps Twin towers was meant here?)

Quran 2:193 : And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression

Quran 2:216 : Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you

Quran 5:33 : The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Quran 4:89: "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades (change to other religions), seize them and kill them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-" (Punishment for the apostates).

Quran 9:5 : But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.

Quran 9:28 : O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. (This verse is a glaring example how much hatreds Islam possess against non-Muslims).

Quran 8:67: "It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land-." (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive)

Quran 8:17: It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s-.." (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah)

Quran 9:23 : "O ye who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong". [Quran is asking Muslims even to go against their own father and brothers in respect of religious faith]

Quran 3:28 : "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah"

Quran 5:45 : We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear. Tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." (Does this verse sound humane?)

Quran 47:4: "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives": thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens."

Quran 9:123: "Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you."

Quran 2:191: "Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out."

Quran 8:12: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." [Allah is really most merciful]

Holy Quran, as we read, is full of heinous, inhuman, and utterly dreadful cruel verses. The main themes of Quranic or scriptural instruction are: pursuance by advice, then by intimidation/coercion, then by force (killing, fighting, maiming etc), and in return plenty of heavenly reward from Allah. We can find hundreds of cruel hateful and utterly inhuman verses throughout the Quran. The above Quranic scriptures incited early Muslim Jihadis of 7^th century period to kill thousands of non-Muslims and other infidels. During the early period of Islam, especially during Islamic expeditions by Prophet Muhammad himself while he was in Medina, thousands of infidels were brutally killed (beheaded) by the Jihadis. These same Quranic verses may still inciting devout/fanatical Muslims of modern days.

Now, does it take a rocket scientist to understand the source of the fanatical will of those September 11 terrorists? Does it ring the bell from where these Islamic terrorists (all over the world) getting their inspiration and hope? Will our Islamists still say, "Islam is a religion of peace," or that "Qur’an is full of kind and compassionate advises?" Quran tells us to: "not to make friendship with Jews and Christians" (5:51), fight them "until they pay the Jizya (a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29). "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191), "murder them and treat them harshly" (9:123), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (9:5), "kill and be killed; i.e. commit suicide to kill kaffirs" (9:111).

However, Quran a holy book which is replete with contradictions also contains rare deceptive verses like the following:

Quran 4:29-30: O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: in Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah hath been to you Most Merciful! If any do that rancor and injustice,- soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And easy it is for Allah.

Quran 5:32: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

Hypocritical Islamists try to use theses (only) two verses above to make an excuse that Allah forbade suicide killing for Muslims, or killing people. Truly, these verses (4:29-30) above only talking about self-destruction (suicide) for no real purpose other than self depression or pains which sometimes human prefers to end his life in order to get relief from pains. This kind of self-killing is prohibited by any religions, society or creeds and is called self-destruction (suicide) without having any ulterior motive or purpose. But this universal suicide has nothing to do with Allah’s call of "kill and be killed" (Quranic verse-9:111) with the divine purpose (to kill infidels) of serving Allah, as the verse has clearly stated. And the verse (5:32) is purely a deceptive verse used by most hypocrites of Islam to fool the Westerners. This verse was meant to describe historical aspects of Israelites and is nothing to do with the Muslims. Nor does this verse do any abrogation of the hundreds of killing verses came afterwards (while in Medina) to incite random killings (Jihad) of any un-believers by Allah’s soldiers called Muslims. In short holy Quran could be named (undoubtedly) as the supreme manual of intimidation, vengeance, terror, violence, and war against non-Muslims.

Profile of the Islamic Terrorists

Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and his al-Qaeda jihadis have frequently cited many passages from the Holy Quran to justify their flagrant acts of terrorism around the world. Suicide bombing is the most successful weapon to strike terror in the hearts of the western infidels. In his famous ‘fatwa’ of declared war against Americans in 1998, terrorist leader OBL has repeatedly used jihadi verses from the Quran (mentioned in this essay) to incite his followers to kill Americans/infidels primarily by the act of suicide bombing. All the 9/11 Islamic terrorists left their private notes (especially Muhammad Ata) citing Quranic killing verses and they all committed suicide to kill American infidels (Kaffirs) 100% according to the Quranic verss 9:111. Not a single time they have ever claimed or mentioned any hadiths as the inciting agent of their killing spree. Israel have had captured numerous would be suicide bombers (who’s detonating did not work in their attempt of suicide bombing) with the suicide belt around them, and they all were interviewed by the western reporters in the Israeli prison cell. All most all of them told the reporters-they wanted to die to kill infidels according to the Quranic instructions to achieve heavenly pleasures with 72 virgin houris. None has ever mentioned anything about hadiths or Sharia laws as their instigator.

All the Islamic terrorists arrested by police in Europe (especially in Netherlands such as Van Gogh killing) readily cited Quran as their teacher to commit terrorism in order to kill infidels. In the train terrorism incident at Madrid (Spain) the Islamic terrorists were all longtime resident of Spain (North American and Syrian born) who admitted to police that they were "inspired by the doctrines (Koran) of Islam" to rise up against their adopted host country to kill 191 Spanish innocent citizen.

Recently, in Bangladesh (a newly infested nation by Islamic jihadis) has experienced an epidemic of bomb blasts by Islamic terrorists of Bangladeshi variety including scores of suicide bombings to kill judges in the various court premises. In such process of suicide bombing attempts, two have been captured by the police. When asked by the reporters why they were going to kill people by suicide method, they have answered: "We were doing it by the order of Quranic instructions by Allah." When Bangladesh terrorist leader Maulana Shaikh Rahman and Bangla Bhai have been captured by the police, Maulana Shaikh Rahman said: "We have done it to establish Allah’s laws in Bangladesh and we were doing it according to the Quran." Showing one copy of Quran in his hand, he (Maulana) said: "If I am a terrorist, then Quran also a terrorist." What could be the more clear evidence that Islamic terrorists are directly getting incitement and encouragement from the holy Quran?

More recently, the 20^th hijacker of 9/11 terrorism Zacaria Moussaoui proudly declared in the court: "I wish I could kill more Americans, because my religion Islam (which is of course Quran) demands that I kill infidels." Zacaria Moussaoui or any other Islamic terrorists never told that they have been incited by the teaching of ahadiths or Sharia laws alone. In fact, all most all Sharia laws are rooted to the Quran and supported by hadiths.

Point to ponder that life is invaluable and extremely precious to every human (Rich, poor, young, old, sick or even handicapped) and no one wants to die in vain without any real purpose or gains. Only a superior/divine lustful hopes and inspiration due to brainwashing can trigger somebody to take his/her life. Islamic terrorists are definitely inspired by such lustful afterlife. Palestinian young boys and girls of 12-16 do not die just for revenge or to free their motherland. They definitely have the vision of Islamic heavenly pleasures (due to brainwashing) which inspire them to wear a deadly suicide belt around their young and tender bodies. Quran is readily available almost in every house of Muslims in general, but books of Hadiths are very rarely available to the ordinary Muslims. General Muslims do not get motivation from the Hadiths, because they do not get chance to read hadiths. Besides, Muslims do not take hadith as seriously as Quranic dictums, and to do something as serious as killing innocent people in exchange (suicide) of own life Muslims surely need Quranic instructions; and for that reason Quran has plenty of it.

Are all suicide bombings the same?

Islamic apologists often argue that suicide bombings for the cause of freedom fighting committed not only by the Muslims, but by many other nations (Tamil, Jews, and Japanese Kamakazies) committed suicide bombings for their own freedom struggle. According to them, Muslims are committing suicide today for their freedom struggle. Therefore, suicide bombings by Muslim youths have nothing to do with Islam! Most prudent question can be asked here: Are all those past suicide bombings same as Islamic suicide bombings today? Are their pattern same? Let us examine:

Those so called Tamil Tiger, Jews or Japanese Kamakazis may have used technique of suicide bombings very rarely as their desperate quest only to free their own motherland, and their suicide acts were absolutely limited to their own land targeting soldiers, leaders and not innocent civilians. Tamil, Jews, Kamakazies or IRA never blasted bombs in other countries outside their own geographic boundary; they only primarily did blast bombs within their own border. Rarely, isolated suicide-bombing occurred within the vicinity of their border, such as the killing Rajib Ghandi by a Tamil woman for his support of the Sri Lankan Government. But they never ever came to America, Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia etc. to blast suicide bombs inside restaurants, bus, train, metro, ocean beaches, tourist resorts etc. None of those above did suicide bombings throughout the whole world globally like those Islamists vigorously doing it today. How many Tamil blasted suicide bomb in Europe or America? Was there any global jihadi phenomenon of suicide bombings by Tamil Tigers like those Islamists?

Islamists also now telling us that those Muslim youths blasting their jihadi suicide bombs only to take revenge for Iraq war. As if, before Iraq war Islamic jihadis were very gentle and were sitting idle. May I ask why those Islamic jihadis were blasting bombs relentlessly at US military camps in Saudi Arabia, American Embassies in Tanzania, Uganda, Pakistan, Nairobi and elsewhere, much before Iraq war? Why they killed more than 3000 innocent civilians in WTC? Why they bombed US ship at Yemen? Why they bombed US barrack at Beirut? Was their Iraq war then?

Conclusion

Quite obviously, the cause of Islamic fanaticism, zealotry and suicide terrorism is rooted in the Holy Quran (9:111; 3:169; 4:74; 4:95). Terrorists like Osama bin Laden and others are the victims of Quranic scriptural immoral teachings. They believe Quran by their hearts and try to follow the Quran in Toto! But the general born Muslims do not follow Quran at all, and that is why they believe in their own peaceful illusionary vision of Islam, which never existed in the history of Islam.

However, the zeal of Islamic fanaticism could have energized by the Middle East Political situation of Palestine and Israel. But this has also much to do with their inherent hatred towards Jews and other non-Muslims which they have acquired primarily from the teachings of Quran and some supports from hadiths in the Madrassas in their early lives.

Osama bin Laden is the true Muslim who follows Quran and hadiths in ‘Toto’ and this hero of Muslim interprets Quranic verses and hadiths as per the needs of Islamic Umma, and of course, as per the real spirit of medieval Islam. In fact, gullible Muslims consider OBL as the mirror image of Prophet Muhammad and many things about him (OBL) are 100% compatible with the life and deeds of Islamic prophet Muhammad. That is why true Muslims (Maulanas, Mullahs, Madrassa students [Talibans], all leaders of Islamic political parties) of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and other Muslim countries are supporting Osama and his host, Talibans of Afghanistan. It’s totally irrelevant and useless to claim that Osama, al-Qaeda terrorists and Talibans are not true Muslims, or they are Muslims by their distorted views of Islam! Actually, they are the real Muslims, and they are the Muslims by the book. All others so called progressive Muslims (living in the western comfort) are simply Muslims by virtue of their birth in a Muslim family.

Time has arrived now to identify and intervening the real cause of this ancient medieval stupidity. Real problem is with the ancient Bedouin teachings of Islam (read Quran) which are outdated and no longer fitting the today’s civilized world. Islamic terrorism is the giant problem of entire mankind today and fanatic Muslims are the zombies at the hands of immoral Quranic teachings. How can one cure a body by keeping the cancerous lesion inside the body? Nothing can change this precarious situation of Muslims unless we realize the real problem (read Quran) and take care of it. Finally, let me close this essay by a famous quotation.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." — by Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg:

Literatures:

1. The Holy Qur’an, Translated by A. Yousuf Ali, Published by Amana Corporation, Brentwood, Maryland, 1983
2. Holy Qur’an, Translated into Bengali by Ahmadiya Muslim Centenary Publication of Bangladesh, 4 Bakshi Bazar road, Dhaka, 1992
3. Holy Qur’an, Bengali translation by Maulana Muhiuddin Khan, Khademu Harmain Sharifain, Saudi Arabia, Madina Mannwara, 1413 Hijri.

It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday’s killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses.

Nidal Malik Hasan had told fellow soldiers that the Muslim who killed two recruiters last summer in Little Rock, Arkansas had done the right thing. He spoke openly of his belief that the Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq should rise up and fight the aggressor, by which he meant the U.S. military of which he inexplicably was a part.

He wrote blog entries urging jihad, entries which six months ago attracted the attention of the FBI. Bizarrely, its investigation was closed, he was allowed to continue serving in the military, and as a result, 11 innocent soldiers are now dead, cut down in cold blood on one of their own bases on U.S. soil.

It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday’s massacre is living proof. And yesterday’s incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don’t shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we’ll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you’re right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it’s used, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms.

This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.

And don’t give us reassurances about the oaths that Muslim soldiers take to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Hasan took that oath, and it proved meaningless. In fact, the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to lie to you through his teeth, since lying to the infidel to advance the cause of Islam is commended, not just permitted, in the Koran.

It’s time we all got over the nonsense that all cultures and religions are equally valid or worthy. They most certainly are not. While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.

And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.

The military is not about social engineering or diversity or multiculturalism or about proving what open-minded people we are. It’s about being ready to break things and kill people so that Americans can sleep securely in their beds at night. The mission is too important to be compromised by enlisting possible jihadi warriors and giving them the weapons and training to gun down our own soldiers and paying them all the while.

The barbarians are no longer at the gate. They’re inside the fort, and it’s time for the insanity to stop.

"Nobel committee have embraced the great American policy of affirmative action and that even if you do not achieve, because you are a minority we have to allow you to join the club"

Barack Hussein Obama the new Messiah but he had to complete his title as the Prince of Peace. Nine months into to presidency two major speeches one to the Muslim world and the second at the UN, he is pronounced Nobel Laureate for Peace and about to be anointed in Norway. WOW, WOW hale the Messiah!!

The world is either very sick or very stupid, maybe both. Al Gore is the Nobel Laureate for Global Warming, when the earth is now cooling for eleven years in a row and now the world is on the edge of war with an appeasing president; it will undoubtedly deliver us the opposite of peace. How naive can the world be? Well it is about as naive as the world was in the 1930s, I suppose.

To listen to the justification for such a prize is so funny if it were not so pathetic. As one radio commentator put it this morning, that he had just himself been awarded an Oscar for the greatest film he has yet to make. I thought we win acknowledgment and prizes for achievements not for expectations. I get it, the Nobel committee have embraced the great American policy of affirmative action and that even if you do not achieve, because you are a minority we have to allow you to join the club.

The Nobel Laureate prize has already discredited its value by awarding Nobel prizes to Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and now to a President who cannot justify such a prize based on his record to date.

If Barack Hussein Obama was the real deal he should thank the Nobel board for their honor but refuse to accept the prize until he has shown the world that he can deliver some tangible results in peace with justice and truth not just an absence of war. However, based on viewing this arrogant and narcissistic record to date it is unlikely that a gesture of humility will be forthcoming.

I hope and pray that President Obama can achieve the expectations the world sets for him, but based on the current track and the lessons of history we are set for some very difficult times ahead.

Hope and change is here, hale the new Messiah, Nobel Prince of Peace.

WASHINGTON – The Barack Obama administration has announced plans to lift a government ban on tracking visitors to government websites, and potentially, collect their personal data through the use of "cookies" – an effort some suspect may already be in place on White House sites.

A ban on such tracking by the federal government on Internet users has been in place since 2000, however, the White House Office of Management and Budget now wants to lift the ban citing a "compelling need."

In fact, according to the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, federal agencies have already negotiated agreements and contracts with social networking sites like Google, YouTube, SlideShare, Facebook, AddThis, Blist, Flickr and VIMEO to collect information on visitors for federal web sites. All of these private companies are known to have agreements with federal agencies, but the public has never seen them.

In public comments submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, EPIC notes it has obtained documents that show federal agencies have negotiated these contracts with the private sector in violation of "existing statutory privacy rights." Those agencies include: Department of Defense, Department of the Treasury, and the National Security Agency.

There are suspicions the White House is already involved.

It’s time to put up or shut up, America. Literally. Get the book that shows how to fight the assault on your freedom of speech!

When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was recently asked by Fox News reporter Major Garrett why Americans who had not signed up to receive any e-mails from the White House, were now receiving e-mails from White House adviser David Axelrod promoting President Obama’s health care plan, Gibbs refused to answer the question.

"The Obama administration’s favorite book seems to be ‘1984′ by George Orwell," said Brad O’Leary, publisher of The O’Leary Report monthly newsletter and author of "Shut Up, America: The End of Free Speech." "Only they don’t see ‘1984′ as a warning, but rather a blueprint for spying on every American who visits a government website – something that has been banned for nearly a decade."

According to Obama "technology czar" Vivek Kundra, the "compelling need" driving this major policy reversal is the administration’s desire to create "more open" government and to "enhance citizen participation in government."

O’Leary finds serious fault with Kundra’s rationale.

"According to the new technology czar, there is a ‘compelling need’ to do this," said O’Leary. "The only compelling need I can think of is for a failing Obama administration to compile an enemy list of gun owners, pro-lifers, tea-party participants, those opposed to illegal immigration, and anyone opposed to the Obama-Pelosi agenda of government control over Americans’ lives."

Spy cookies can do more than merely recall the user names and passwords of visitors who return to their favorite web sites. They can also track, retrieve and report selected movements someone makes on the Internet. Through the use of cookies, the federal government could have the power to create an individual profile of anyone who visits a government website – right down to a person’s recent online purchases, or even race, gender and income level.

"No matter what the Obama administration says, a ‘cookie’ is a spy device," said O’Leary. "No matter how inoffensive the administration says their spy devices will be, once you open the door to the federal government spying on every American who visits a government website, it can’t be closed – it can only be expanded."

According to O’Leary, if the Obama administration is successful in lifting this ban on federal privacy invasion, the lives of many Americans could become open books for bureaucrats.

"What if a harmless trip to the State Department’s travel website or the White House’s health care site, the Census Bureau’s web site results in the Obama administration’s discovery that you are someone who recently visited Cabela’s, Smith and Wesson, or a tea party or pro-life web site?" asked O’Leary. "Is this all mundane information that political animals in government don’t care about? Of course not. You might sooner expect a visit from Obama’s IRS or Homeland Security than a pat on the back for ‘participating’ in government."

O’Leary says that it is time for Congress to step in and pass legislation to protect the privacy rights of Americans who could fall victim to White House spy cookies.

"Because of the lack of transparency from the Obama White House, we are filing FOIA requests to determine exactly how these agencies are using spy cookies," said O’Leary.

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Brad O’Leary, email press@wnd.com

Americans are speaking up and confronting the President Obama and Democrat lawmakers with concerns about their health care

"reform."

Citizens are flocking to town hall forums across the nation and letting their representatives know where they stand. Meetings are filled to capacity while thousands wait outside for their chance to be heard.

New Hampshire

At a Portsmouth, N.H., high school today, President Obama hosted a health care town hall.

An estimated 2,000 proponents and opponents of his plan gathered in the streets with signs and bullhorns, ready to greet the president’s motorcade. While groups opposed to the health "reform" arrived in small groups with hand-made signs, supporters from pro-Obama organizations, such as Organizing for America and Health Care for America Now, spilled out of buses.

"Let’s get this done," Obama shouted to a crowd of 1,800 inside Portsmouth High School.

Critics remained calm and polite when the president solicited responses from "skeptical" attendees, according to the Associated Press.

Pennsylvania

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., held a town hall meeting this morning in Lebanon, Pa., where constituents booed and jeered him for at least an hour. One man began shouting because he was not given an opportunity to speak. He complained that Specter, a long-time Republican who switched over to the Democratic Party this year, would not listen because he’s "not a lobbyist with all kind of money to stuff in your pocket."

"One day, God’s going to stand before you," he told the senator to his face. "And he’s going to judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill – and then you will get your just desserts."

Other attendees complained about Democrats plans for health "reform." CBS News reported that one woman wore a "member of the mob" T-shirt – referencing Democrat claims that insurance companies and the Republican Party had enlisted "angry mobs" to disrupt town hall meetings.

"I don’t believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country," a woman told Specter. "You have awakened a sleeping giant. I don’t want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"

Her question prompted a standing ovation. Several members of the crowd shouted, "You work for us!" Meanwhile, a large crowd gathered outside with signs warning of socialism.

The following video shows the exchange:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Missouri

At an Aug. 6 forum sponsored by Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., many protesters were turned away at the door while SEIU members were allowed in. A video of the St. Louis, Mo., incident can be seen below:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The event resulted in six arrests. Afterward, town hall attendee Kenneth Gladney, 38, was beaten, kicked and called racist names outside the meeting. He was at the forum to sell "Don’t tread on me" flags, but he said he found himself with a Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, member in his face, calling him the "N"-word and asking what he was doing peddling his message.

Gladney claims he was punched in the face and two other SEIU members jumped on top of him, yelled racial epithets and kicked and punched him. He said he sought treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face.

Also in Missouri, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., faced "shouts and jeers" even in "friendly territory" at her town hall forum on Aug. 10.

At Poplar Bluff, Mo., the report said, an audience of 500 applauded the loudest when Obama was called a socialist.

Another audience member asked, "Where’s the birth certificate?" alluding to the dispute over Obama’s still-unreleased eligibility documentation .

AP reported McCaskill was visibly frustrated and at one point said, "You guys are so mean."

Florida

Rep. Kathy Castor’s Aug. 6 town hall meeting in Tampa, Fla., ended abruptly after 1,500 citizens attempted to enter an event intended to hold approximately 250 people.

Hundreds of people remained outside, many of whom had been waiting for hours to attend the meeting. Meanwhile, seats remained empty inside while SEIU workers and other attendees distributed flyers and signs for the Democrat health care plan to audience members.

One woman outside shouted, "This was supposed to be a town hall meeting. Last time I checked, those were open to the public."

Finally, some attendees were allowed in, but hundreds waited in line with signs outside.

Castor left 15 minutes into the meeting. Just outside the meeting room, constituents chanted, "You work for us," "Tyranny, tyranny” and "Read the bill."

A businessman with a shredded shirt reported to police that staffers attacked him, twisting his arm and tearing his watch off. Another, he claims, grabbed him by the neck and tore his shirt.

"I just came to listen and see what I’m missing about this health care thing because it doesn’t make sense to me," he told a reporter.

Castor later said the event has strengthened her resolve to promote health care reform.

"It has strengthened my resolve to stand up for families and seniors," Castor told reporters for Tampa Bay Online. "Floridians are bearing a great burden in health care costs, more than almost any other state."

A video of the crowd outside the event can be seen below:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Georgia

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., hosted an Aug. 10 town hall meeting at the Georgia Perimeter College campus in Clarkston. At least 500 citizens showed up in an auditorium while between 1,000 and 1,500 watched the discussion on closed circuit television screens in the gymnasium . Hundreds of citizens stood in an exceedingly long line to have their voices heard while as many as 500 people left the event. Though there was a mix of booing and cheering, attendees stayed calm during the discussion

The following video by a group called Secular Stupidest shows the length of the line:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Maryland

In Maryland, Sen. Ben Cardin faced booing and jeering constituents at his Aug. 10 forum as he attempted to defend the health care legislation. According to Fox News, when Cardin said details of how the plan will be funded have not been worked out, attendees shouted, "Taxes!" and "Spend, Ben, spend!"

When one person asked Cardin for a single example of a government-run program that provided services to citizens at a lower cost, Cardin cited national parks system and Medicare.

The crowd booed and jeered in disapproval.

Earlier, Cardin admitted to receiving nearly 1,600 RSVP’s for a town hall meeting at a concert hall that only seated only 500. When and estimated 1,500 showed up for the meeting , protesters lined the streets outside with signs and shouts.

Iowa

More than 200 citizens shared their thoughts on government-run health care with Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, today. On several occasions, he was challenged by the crowd after he declared the current health care system unsustainable.

During an Aug 8 event, one man yelled: "This is not health reform, this is control, control over our lives."

Harkin accused the man of being part of "a nationally coordinated effort to disrupt these meetings," but the man said no one sent him to the forum.

There were no violent incidents

Michigan

As WND reported, an irate Michigan father worried over what Obamacare would do to his handicapped adult son said he was threatened after trying to get a direct answer from Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich, on Aug 6. In an interview with Fox, Sola explained how he took his wheelchair-bound adult son to the front of the room to confront Dingell, 83.

Sola said he demanded information about what Obamacare would provide for his son, and Dingell responded with a statement that there is an amendment to address the needs of the handicapped.

However, Sola said that amendment doesn’t exist.

Dingell tried to explain at a town hall that people "don’t know" how much they’re already paying to cover the uninsured , but his reasoning was drowned out by protesters.

In an MSNBC interview, Dingell later said the town hall protests remind him of Ku Klux Klan protests.

"Well, the last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it," he said. "At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble."

Click here to view the embedded video.

As WND reported , legislators coming to their home districts in attempt to sell the health care plan to constituents are being met with fierce opposition and huge crowds:

• Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., was confronted by self-described Democrats who accused their representative of lying about health reform and protested, "Why would you try to stuff a health care plan down our throats in a couple days when the president took six months to pick a dog for his kids?"
• Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., has called off further events after a June 22 event he held in Setauket, N.Y., in which protesters dominated the meeting by shouting criticisms at the congressman for his positions on energy policy, health care and the bailout of the auto industry.
• Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., got an earful, too – especially on the health-care issue.
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., visited a Denver, Colo., clinic for the homeless to raise support for Obama’s health care plan, only to be met by streets lined with protesters opposed to the measure .
• Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-TX, went out to meet constituents , only to be met with protesters shouting in opposition to the health care bill, "Just say no!"
• At a health care town hall event in Syracuse, N.Y., in July, police were called in to restore order, and at least one heckler was taken away by local police.
• Close to 100 sign-carrying protesters greeted Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., at a late June community college small-business development forum in Panama City, Fla.
• Danville, Va., anti-tax tea party activists claimed they were "refused an opportunity" to ask Rep. Thomas Perriello, D-Va., a question at a town hall event and instructed by a plainclothes police officer to leave the property after they attempted to hold up protest signs.
• Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., was chased by a crowd saying the Pledge of Allegiance .
• The constituents of Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., unable to access their representative through a town hall meeting, created a video charging that Tanner has met with Michael Moore and Fidel Castro, "But he won’t meet his constituents in the 8th District to talk about health care."

The biggest source of protests are the health-care bill, the $787 billion economic stimulus package and the cap-and-trade legislation. They’re also angry about Barack Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate to prove he is a "natural born citizen" and constitutionally eligible to serve in the White House.

According to an Associated Press report, Obama’s top political adviser, David Axelrod, showed Senators in D.C. video of some of the boisterous town-hall meetings and discussed how to respond to disruptions.

"It’s a challenge, no question about it, and you’ve got to get out there and make the case," Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said afterward. "This is not the time for the faint-hearted."

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats’ idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes – the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

As a result, it’s easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!

We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care – all government creations.

Tired of keeping quiet about increasing government control? Express yourself with the magnetic message: "No Hope in Socialism"

So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor.

The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary – which you ought to pay for yourself – and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments – which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against.

This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes – as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider ‘57 Chevy.

But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they’ll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat – but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists.

As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him … or going uninsured. People who aren’t planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance – and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don’t have health insurance.

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down – not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you’re in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas.

Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care – especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure.

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else’s Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It’s like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it’s a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.

Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you’ll be out of luck.

Even two decades after the collapse of liberals’ beloved Soviet Union, they can’t grasp that it’s easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.

You don’t have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise.

Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster – less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card.

Isn’t food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you’d be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care – and health insurance – on the free market.

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama’s plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the ‘long-form’ birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

"We are going to be asking for release of Obama’s records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"

Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

"We’re going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We’re going to say, we have orders every day, and we’ll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying ‘I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.’"

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

E ver since Barack Obama declared his candidacy for president, it’s been easy — and great fun — to spotlight when his promises and statements come with “expiration dates.” The list is long: Public financing. Renegotiating NAFTA. His promise to support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. His inability to disown Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The release of detainee photos. Denouncing Turkey for genocide.

Flip-flops are nothing new in politics, but every once in a while, a president breaks a promise or an important pledge on such an epic level that it defines him, at least in part: “Read my lips: No new taxes. ” “I did not have sexual relations with that woman. ” “We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages — nor will we. ” Even “I will never lie to you. ”

Barack Obama’s sudden about-face on taxing employer-provided health insurance deserves to rank among these classics. Not because it’s as laughable as Bill Clinton’s, or as emphatic as George H. W. Bush’s, but because it takes a certain moral venality to casually adopt, as president, a position that was a dominant theme of your argument for why your opponent should not be president.

		Adler: Betting Blind on ACES Hanson: Obama and the ‘Noble Lie’ Warren: Virginia Gentleman Lopez: Criminal Activity McCarthy: The Originalist Quest Steyn: Let’s Burst the Bubble Murdock: Reading ObamaCare Bill Endangers Human Health Muravchik: Darkness in Tehran Patrico: Not-So-Dark Ages Cole: Artists on the Dole Cantor: Obama’s Conflicting Signals Bakst: The Renewable-Energy Scam Geraghty: Barack Obama Is a Big Fat Liar Editors: Son of Stimulus Goldberg: Endless Love Lowry: On Health Care, Obama’s Dirty Secret

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign spent $44 million on 16 different television ads hammering John McCain on this idea, according to research by Evan L. Tracey, founder and president of Campaign Media Analysis Group, a TNS Media Intelligence company.

“This message was a central theme and a significant percentage of the Obama campaign’s advertising in 2008,” Tracey said. His organization estimated last November that Obama’s campaign spent $250 million on television advertising, meaning that about 17 percent of all of Obama’s ads were denouncing McCain for this proposal.

The ads left no wiggle room:

Announcer: John McCain on health care.

John McCain: “I want to give every American a 5,000-dollar refundable tax credit.”

Announcer: Here’s the truth.

Barack Obama: “He says that he’s going to give you a 5,000-dollar tax credit. What he doesn’t tell you is that he is going to tax your employer-based health-care benefits for the first time ever. So what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.”

Announcer: John McCain. Instead of fixing health care, he wants to tax it.

Barack Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

Sometimes the ads keyed the issue to a particular swing state:

Announcer: In Nevada, we work hard, and many of us get health insurance through our jobs. John McCain’s health plan would tax our health benefits as income. Taxing health benefits for the first time ever, meaning higher taxes for us. Under McCain, insurance companies prosper. Nevadans pay. Taxing our health-care benefits. An idea we should send back to Arizona. John McCain doesn’t get Nevada. He doesn’t get us.

Barack Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”

Obama won Nevada, 55 percent to 43 percent, a dramatic improvement on John Kerry’s 47.9 percent four years earlier.

The back-and-forth on the proposal in the vice-presidential debate provided the visuals and audio for another ad:

[Text]: McCain’s health plan. What she said.

Sarah Palin: “He’s proposing a 5,000-dollar tax credit for families so that they can get out there, and they can purchase their own health-care coverage.”

[Text]: What she didn’t say.

Joe Biden: “Well, you know how John McCain pays for his 5,000-dollar tax credit? He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health-care plan through your employer. Taxing your health-care benefit. I call that the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.”

[Text]: Taxing health benefits for the first time ever.

Gwen Ifill: “Thank you, Senator.”

[Text]: The McCain health tax. What they can’t explain.

Barack Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”

Of course, it wasn’t just ads. Obama hammered the point again and again in his stump speech. On September 12, 2008, while appearing in Dover, N.H., Obama said :

And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase — not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes. My opponent can’t make that pledge, and here’s why: For the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits. Apparently, Senator McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too. That’s a $3.6 trillion tax increase on middle-class families. That will eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes. That’s his idea of change.

Notice there’s no mention of income level, or certain limited circumstances in which it would be acceptable to tax health benefits. No suggestion that the proposal might be something he would accept a compromise on. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

In early October he went even further, calling McCain’s plan “so radical, so out of touch with what you’re facing, and so out of line with our basic values.”

On Capitol Hill, however, Democrats have long liked the idea as a new form of tax revenue. Obama’s relentless denunciation of the proposal would seem to preclude his signing it into law, but “would seem to” is not “does.” Back in March, White House budget director Peter Orszag said taxing employer benefits was among several ideas that “most firmly should remain on the table,” and some congressional Democrats told the Washington Post that White House officials said Obama would accept such a tax “as long as he didn’t have to propose it himself.”

Finally, during Wednesday’s p.r. push for his health-care plan, Obama refused to rule out the proposal that he once said made John McCain unfit for office.

“I don’t want to prejudge what they’re doing,” he said about Senate proposals to tax workers who get expensive insurance policies. “I have identified the ways that I think we should finance this. I think Congress should adopt them. I’m going to wait and see what ideas ultimately they come up with.”

Poof! What was once “so radical, so out of touch with what you’re facing, and so out of line with our basic values” now is not worthy of prejudgment.

Where does John McCain get his reputation back? And if Obama will do an about-face on this issue, is there any promise he’s made that is not approaching an inevitable expiration date?

— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO.

WASHINGTON – WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can prove he or she was present at the birth of Barack Obama – and he’s asking Americans to donate to the cause in hopes of raising the bounty to an irresistible amount.

"Barack Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961," explains Farah. "His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate – the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Therefore, in the interest of truth, justice and the Constitution, I am making the extraordinary offer to entice someone to come forward with the facts of his birth – whether it took place in Hawaii or elsewhere."

Obama has steadfastly refused to release evidence of that Hawaiian birth – a valid, long-form birth certificate that would show details of the birth, such as the hospital and the attending physician. Because the short-form "certification of live birth" he released to select news organization was at least sometimes issued for foreign births on the basis of an affidavit by one parent, it proves nothing as far as constitutional eligibility – and, in fact, raises suspicions about a foreign birth.

To date, no hospital in Hawaii has come forward to claim this historic birth.

No doctor or nurse has come forward to say they were present for that historic birth.

No witness of any kind has come forward to say they have first-hand knowledge or involvement in that historic birth – at least in Hawaii.

Obama’s paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, claims to have been present for the birth in Mombassa, Kenya.

"It is clear now that Obama will never willingly release his birth certificate," said Farah. "It’s time for Americans who still value the Constitution to step up and force the issue. It’s time for us to learn the truth of where Obama was born. We may find he was born in Hawaii. We may find he was born elsewhere. I have no pre-conceived ideas. But this issue has haunted the American people long enough. It’s time for some truth and transparency."

To collect the reward, the subject must:

1. Agree to an interview with WND journalists;

2. Provide persuasive evidence, such as pictures, documents or verifiable details;

3. Agree to a polygraph test.

"I think it’s disgraceful that Americans should be forced to go to such lengths by the intransigence of public officials toward accountability," said Farah. "But that is what it has come to in 2009 with our current president. He prefers to dodge and weave, while his apologists in government and media viciously attack citizens for attempting to see that the Constitution is observed."

Farah launched a petition drive earlier this year that has accumulated nearly 400,000 signatures demanding that all controlling legal authorities pursue proof of Obama’s status as a "natural born citizen." That petition campaign is still on-going.

More recently, he launched a billboard campaign raising the simple question, "Where’s the birth certificate?" That campaign has raised $85,000 so far. Farah says there are plenty of billboards available, despite a ban on the campaign by several major outdoor advertising companies. But donations have dried up because of an apparent misperception among readers that billboards are not available due to the bans imposed by a few companies.

In addition, Farah points out those interested in backing his latest campaign can also raise visibility for the issue by purchasing magnetic bumper stickers, tea party rally signs and yard signs that raise the same simple question, "Where’s the birth certificate?"

All funds not used specifically for a reward will go toward the purchase of more billboard space.

If you would like to raise the reward, WND is accepting contributions in any amount. Donations can be made online, by phone and credit card or checks can be mailed to:

WND
PO Box 1627
Medford, Or 97501

Checks should be clearly marked as to purpose.

If you would like to arrange a credit card contribution by phone, call 1.800.4WND.COM

Here is an actual Hawaiian birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama’s birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician.

Long-form birth certificate from state of Hawaii (Image courtesy Philip Berg)

Here is the "Certification of Live Birth" presented by Obama:

Short-form "Certification of Live Birth"

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

President Barack Obama’s refusal to take a stand on protests in Iran stands in sharp contrast to demands he has made on Israel, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, says in a Newsmax interview.

“I think he should take a strong stand to support the protesters in Iran who want to transform that society into one that promotes democracy and human rights,” Klein says. ”But while meddling in Israel’s affairs and making specific demands, he explicitly states he refuses to meddle in Iran’s policies and has said almost nothing.”

Klein says leaders of Jewish organizations are rethinking their support of Obama in light of his attitude toward Israel.

“There are many leaders in the organized Jewish world who have privately discussed this issue with me, and say they are deeply concerned about Obama’s actions and policies toward Israel, and now they’re rethinking their support for Obama during the campaign and the election,” says Klein, whose organization of 30,000 members is the oldest pro-Israel group in the country.

Based on the president’s speech in Cairo on June 4 and many of his foreign policy appointments, Klein thinks Obama “may become the most hostile president to Israel ever.”

Obama’s speech was “inimical to Israel and supportive of the stream of false Palestinian Arab claims concerning Israel,” Klein says. “He is relentlessly pressuring Israel while applying virtually almost no pressure on the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its written obligations.”

As a child of survivors of the Holocaust, Klein says he was particularly offended by Obama’s comparison of the suffering of Palestinians with the Nazis’ murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

“I found this to be an abominable, odious, and ridiculously false analogy,” he says.

While Klein’s parents’ survived, his father lost his eight brothers and sisters and all his aunts and uncles in Nazi concentration camps. Klein’s mother lost half her family.

In his speech, Klein says, Obama said that “the treatment of Palestinian Arabs by Israel is equivalent to the treatment of South African blacks during apartheid and of enslaved blacks before the Civil War, more than implying that Israel is an oppressor. He falsely claimed that Palestinian Arabs were displaced by Israel in 1948, when in fact, if six Arab nations hadn’t invaded Israel to destroy it, there wouldn’t be a single Palestinian Arab who left that area.”

Klein disputes Obama’s reference to Palestinian Arabs trying to establish a state for 60 years.

“They could have had a state in 1937,” he says. “They turned it down. They could have had a state in 1948. From 1948 to 1967, when they controlled all of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, they never attempted to establish a state. In 2000, they were offered a state on almost all the disputed territories. They turned it down. So this is a completely false claim that they’ve been trying to establish a state for 60 years.”

By claiming that America has 7 million Muslims, Obama showed a willingness to use phony figures to support a tilt toward Muslims, Klein says.

“Every major survey shows there’s between 1.5 million and 2.5 million Muslims in America,” Klein says. “Where does he get the number 7 million? This is the number that the Arab propagandists promote. There’s no legitimate survey that shows a number of that nature.”

Klein says it is premature to focus on the establishment of a Palestinian state as long as Palestinians promote violence and hatred against Israel.

“To promote a Palestinian state at a time when Hamas, the terrorist group, controls Gaza, and Fatah, which also promotes terror, controls the West Bank, is absurd,” Klein observes. The Palestinians “continue to promote hatred and violence against Jews and Americans in their schools, media and speeches,” Klein notes. “They refuse to arrest a single anti-Israel terrorist, zero. They refuse to outlaw terrorist groups, which is required under the agreements they’ve signed. They continue to name schools, streets, and sports teams after terrorists, glorifying murder.”

Moreover, Klein says, “control of the Palestinian territories is split between Hamas and Fatah, so there is no one regime to negotiate with.”

If the Palestinians “fulfilled all their written obligations for a significant period of time, clearly an overwhelming majority of Israelis, Americans, and the world would support a Palestinian state,” Klein says.

As Klein sees it, while Obama is “ignoring the anti-peace, pro-terror actions of the Hamas-Fatah regime,” he is “rushing headlong into establishing yet another terrorist state in the Middle East, as opposed to working to ensure that we end the existence of terrorist states in general,” Klein says.

Some of the views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Obama’s minister, friend, and mentor, are apparent in Obama’s remarks, Klein says.

“If you look at Rev. Wright’s speeches and sermons as I have, many of the themes, like comparing the Palestinian Arabs to the South Africans and the illegality of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, show up in Obama’s talks and actions,” he says.

During the 2008 election campaign, “I would give speeches and write articles expressing concern about his close friendship with Rev. Wright,” Klein says. “I was repeatedly told that’s not fair; those are Wright’s views, not necessarily his, and that it’s guilt by association.”

In response, Klein would say, “If a Jew was a member of a synagogue where the rabbi preached hatred of blacks, it would be clear that that Jew would be comfortable with anti-black racism. I couldn’t remain for a week at a synagogue where a rabbi made a hateful speech toward blacks. I’d quit immediately.”

Yet, he says, Jews “didn’t apply that normal, appropriate standard to Barack Obama,” Klein says. “Obama gave $27,500 in 2005 and 2006 to Rev. Wright’s church. He called Rev. Wright a great man and his mentor. You can’t be so close to someone you call a great man and a mentor if you don’t agree with what he has to say.”

DUBAI — If al-Qaida were in a position to do so, it would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday.

Pakistan has been battling al-Qaida Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 60 miles northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands.

"God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans," Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al-Qaida’s in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.

Abu al-Yazid was responding to a question about U.S. safeguards to seize control over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in case Islamist fighters came close to doing so.

"We expect that the Pakistani army would be defeated (in Swat) . . . and that would be its end everywhere, God willing."

Asked about the group’s plans, the Egyptian militant leader said: "The strategy of the (al-Qaida ) organization in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny: the United States.

"That can be achieved through continued work on the open fronts and also by opening new fronts in a manner that achieves the interests of Islam and Muslims and by increasing military operations that drain the enemy financially."

The militant leader suggested that naming a new leader for the group’s unit in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Basir al-Wahayshi, could revive its campaign in Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter.

"Our goals have been the Americans . . . and the oil targets which they are stealing to gain power to strike the mujahideen and Muslims."

"There was a setback in work there for reasons that there is no room to state now, but as of late, efforts have been united and there is unity around a single leader."

Abu al-Yazid, also known as Abu Saeed al-Masri, said al-Qaida will continue "with large scale operations against the enemy" — by which he meant the United States.

"We have demanded and we demand that all branches of al-Qaida carry out such operations," he said, referring to attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The militant leader said al-Qaida would be willing to accept a truce of about 10 years’ duration with the United States if Washington agreed to withdraw its troops from Muslim countries and stopped backing Israel and the pro-Western governments of Muslim nations.

Asked about the whereabouts of al-Qaida’s top leaders, he said: "Praise God, sheikh Osama (bin Laden) and sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri are safe from the reach of the enemies, but we would not say where they are; moreover, we do not know where they are, but we’re in continuous contact with them."

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

More Americans now "strongly disapprove" of Barack Obama’s performance as president than "strongly approve," according to the most recent Rasmussen poll.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 33 percent of respondents "strongly approve" of Obama’s performance on the job so far, but 34 percent "strongly disapprove."

Overall, 45 percent of voters disapprove, while 54 percent say they at least somewhat approve.

Obama fares better in the latest Gallup poll, which found that 33 percent of respondents disapprove of his job performance and 58 percent approve. But 58 percent is a new low — since taking office in January, his approval rating has averaged 63 percent, according to Gallup.

Gallup speculates that several factors could be behind Obama’s plunging ratings: the administration’s deficit spending; public concerns about the cost of Obama’s healthcare reform plan; and his cautious response to the election protests in Iran.

In the Rasmussen poll, the percentage of voters who blame George Bush for the country’s economic ills is down eight points from a month ago, to 54 percent, while 39 percent say the country’s economic problems are a result of Obama’s policies. "A growing number say it’s Obama’s economy now," Rasmussen observed.

Other Rasmussen poll findings include:

The U.S. Senate voted unanimously last week to adopt a resolution apologizing for slavery.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, lead sponsor of the resolution, said, "You wonder why we didn’t do it 100 years ago. It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."

Only after decades of public education ignoring and distorting U.S. history can such a huge lie be said with a straight face.

Senator, you didn’t do it 100 years ago because 100 years ago you Democrats were enforcing Jim Crow segregation laws, poll taxes to keep blacks from voting, and riding around in sheets and pointy hats just in case blacks didn’t get the message.

You say "It’s important to have a collective response" because you want to bury the origins, purposes, and historical practices of your own party.

The worst part is, Republicans in the Senate let you get away with it.

Principled Republicans knowing their history would have authored a resolution reciting the facts that the Republican Party was formed, among other reasons, to oppose slavery and that the Republican Party and its first President Abraham Lincoln responded to Southern, Democrat-led secession with a successful war that preserved the union and freed the slaves.

After Lincoln’s assassination (by a Democrat), the Republican-led Congress (over the objections of the Democratic Party minority) amended the Constitution to confirm the liberation of the slaves (13th Amendment: slavery abolished), and the 14th Amendment (freed slaves are citizens equal to all citizens) and the 15th Amendment (right to vote guaranteed to freed slaves).

Southern Democrats spent the next 100 years trying to keep freed slaves down with segregation laws, poll taxes to deny the right to vote, and lynching to enforce the social order. The KKK was formed by a Democrat; no Republican has ever been a member of the KKK. This is the heritage of the Democratic Party.

In fact, the Democratic Party was formed in the first place to defend and expand slavery.

In 1840, the very first national nominating convention of the Democratic Party adopted a platform which read in part:

Resolved, That Congress has no power … to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states … that all efforts by abolitionists … made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery … are calculated … to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union.

Got that, Sen. Harkin? Your party was born defending slavery as necessary for the happiness of the people and threatening secession and war if slavery were challenged.

The same party platform language was used in 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856. In 1860, the Democrat commitment to slavery took a harsher tone.

The Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress in 1850. This monstrous law provided that, since slaves were the personal property of their masters, runaway slaves must be returned to their owners. The law required all law enforcement officers to assist in the recapture of runaway slaves or risk a fine of $1,000 (about $100,000 in today’s dollars)!

The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s in part as a political reaction to this unjust law.

In their national convention of 1860, Democrats harshly responded to certain Northern (Republican) states that were passing state laws to evade the Fugitive Slave Law by adopting a plank in the Democratic Party Platform which read:

Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Senator, your Democratic Party has much to be apologetic about on the slavery issue.

During the civil war, the Southern Democrats led the Confederacy out of the Union; Northern Democrats formed a separate party which opposed the war. The 1864 (Northern) Democratic Party platform adopted a "peace" plank which read in part:

… after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war … justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand … a cessation of hostilities … to the end that … peace may be restored …

Here is the origin of today’s Democratic Party "Peace at any Price, Better Red than Dead, Why Can’t we all just get Along" foreign policy.

The war was started by Democrat secessionists, and just as President Lincoln was on the verge of victory, the Northern Democrats wanted to save the South and slavery with "peace talks"! Voters knew better in 1864 and re-elected Lincoln.

But the Democrats weren’t through. In 1868, Sen. Harkin’s party condemned the Republican Party in its party platform as the "Radical Party," and condemned Reconstruction in these unforgettable words:

Instead of restoring the Union, it (the Radical Party) has dissolved it, and subjected ten states (the former Confederate states) … to military despotism and negro supremacy.

And, senator, don’t tell me this is all ancient history in a lame attempt to evade the true origins of your party.

As recently as 1964, when the Senate debated the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats (including Al Gore’s father) voted no. While Northern Democrats voted yes, their votes were not enough. The deciding votes to pass this landmark bill were provided by Sen. Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., and the Republicans.

Republicans should be proud of their heritage of liberation of the slaves and civil rights voting record.

It’s Harkin and the Democrats who should apologize and pay reparations.

“It’s like putting new brakes on a car that’s already crashed.” Gerald Celante elaborates on Obama’s latest power grab, handing massive new regulatory powers to the Federal Reserve. More control in the hands of the Fed…not a “capital” idea.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The White House, Democrats and MoveOn liberals are spreading healthcare sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there’s one healthcare policy nightmare you won’t hear the Obamas hyping. It’s a tale of poor minority patient-dumping in Chicago — with first lady Michelle Obama’s fingerprints all over it.

Both Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois have raised red flags about the outsourcing program run by the University of Chicago Medical Center. The hospital has nonprofit status and receives lucrative tax breaks in exchange for providing charity care.

Yet, in fiscal year 2007, when Mrs. Obama was employed there, it spent a measly $10 million on charity care for the poor — 1.3 percent of its total hospital expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. The figure is below the 2.1 percent average for nonprofit hospitals in surrounding Cook County.

Rep. Rush called for a House investigation last week in response to months of patient-dumping complaints, noting: "Congress has a duty to expend its power to mitigate and prevent this despicable practice from continuing in centers that receive federal funds."

Don’t expect the president to support a probe. While a top executive at the hospital, Mrs. Obama helped engineer the plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. Under the Orwellian banner of an "Urban Health Initiative," Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to "dramatically improve healthcare for thousands of South Side residents."

In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (i.e., more lucrative) patients. If a Republican had proposed the very same program and recruited black civic leaders to front it, Michelle Obama and her grievance-mongering friends would be screaming "RAAAAAAAAACISM!" at the top of their lungs.

Joe Stephens of The Washington Post wrote, "To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Axelrod’s firm (ASK Public Strategies) recommended an aggressive promotional effort modeled on a political campaign — appoint a campaign manager, conduct focus groups, target messages to specific constituencies, then recruit religious leaders and other third-party ‘validators.’ They, in turn, would write and submit opinion pieces to Chicago publications."

Some healthcare experts saw through Mrs. Obama and PR man Axelrod — yes, the same Axelrod who is now President Obama’s senior adviser. But the University of Chicago Medical Center hired ASK Public Strategies to promote Mrs. Obama’s initiative. Axelrod had the blessing of Chicago political guru Valerie Jarrett — now a White House senior adviser.

Axelrod’s great contribution: re-branding! His firm recommended renaming the initiative after "internal and external respondents expressed the opinion that the word ‘urban’ is code for ‘black’ or ‘black and poor.’ …Based on the research, consideration should be given to re-branding the initiative." Axelrod and the Obama campaign refused to disclose how much his firm received for its genius re-branding services.

In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas’ community exploded upon learning that a young boy covered by Medicaid had been turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams’ mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama’s hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics and Tylenol, and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.

I’ll guarantee you this: You’ll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the first lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the healthcare system.

Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Axelrod’s grand plan. The group released a statement expressing "grave concerns that the University of Chicago’s policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,’ a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)" — signed by President Reagan, by the way — "and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor."

Rewarding political cronies at the expense of the poor while posing as guardians of the downtrodden? Welcome to Obamacare.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC

More than 1.5 million protesters took to the streets of Tehran on Monday, marking the largest anti-regime demonstration Iran has seen since the final days of the shah in early 1979.

Seven people were killed by anti-riot police and roving bands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supporters. Many of those supporters shielded their faces from surveillance videos that plainclothes police were shooting.

The protesters included some unlikely participants: 16 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officers pledged to join the people’s movement, according to initial reports from Tehran. That signaled that the once-solid support of the guard corps for Ahmadinejad is beginning to crack.

The 16 officers were arrested after meeting secretly with top regular army officers on Monday night.

Many of the older men and women who took to the streets also demonstrated to bring down the shah 30 years ago, wrote Kaveh Mohseni, who publishes the French-language Web site, Iran-Resist.

Now, “people are waiting for international support,” Mohseni wrote.

That support wasn’t coming — at least not from President Barack Obama’s administration in Washington.

"It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," Obama said during the weekend.

He reiterated his long-held position that his administration wants to pursue a "tough, direct" dialogue with Tehran.

For many Iranians, Obama’s words were reminiscent of President Bill Clinton, who washed his hands when reporters asked him on July 9, 1999, whether the United States would come to the aid of Iranian students who were revolting in 18 cities across Iran.

America could do nothing, Clinton said — echoing almost exactly the taunt Ayatollah Khomeini had used repeatedly during the revolution.

The Obama administration’s quandary comes after it covertly threw its support behind the election campaign of former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Mousavi made his first appearance since the election at Monday’s rally.

Many in the crowd wore red scarves, a color favored by supporters of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah.

In two messages in Persian, widely circulated through the Internet during the weekend, Pahlavi called for nationwide nonviolent resistance to the regime — the first time he has called for an open revolt since leaving Iran in 1979.

“I stand united with my fellow Iranians and call for the end of the Islamic Republic, or any other prefix in front of the name of my beloved Iran that indicates theocracy or any other form of disregard for democratic and human rights,” he said in one of the messages.

To some, this latest protest — and similar demonstrations in Shiraz, Kerman, Isfahan, Mashad, Tabriz, Rasht, and other major Iranian cities — shows that the regime finally has awakened Iran’s silent majority.

In Tabriz, there were reports that the city’s business district had shut down on Sunday as a sign of joining the anti-regime protests. Many of the protesters shouted, “Death to the dictator,” a slogan not heard in large crowds of demonstrators for decades.

“The protests are a natural expression of the frustration and insult that have been dealt by the regime,” said Roozbeh Farahanipour, a leader of the 1999 student revolt who now is the spokesman for the nationalist Marze por Gohar (Glorious Frontiers Party). “Iranians will tolerate a lot, as the last 30 years attest to, but being treated as stooges is where they draw the line.”

In Tehran on Monday, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported that former President Mohammad Khatami traveled to Cairo during Obama’s trip there and met with a “senior administration official” to discuss the upcoming Iranian election.

Although Ahmadinejad controls the news agency, Iranian observers believed the report was accurate, because it is hard to openly slander such a public person as a former president even in Iran.

Newsmax asked spokesmen for Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to comment on the allegation but received no reply.

Earlier, there were reports that a senior administration official met with Mousavi’s campaign manager, Mehdi Khazali, in Dubai two weeks before the election to offer support.

In the days before the election, editors at the Voice of America’s Persian Service apologized to anti-regime Iranians they normally invite to their shows, saying they no longer could appear on the air because the editors were under orders to invite only guests who supported “reformist” candidates Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi.

On Tuesday morning, the Guardians Council in Tehran announced it would engage in only a “limited recount” of individual ballot boxes whose results had been disputed by one of Ahmadinejad’s three opponents, erasing earlier hopes that they might annul the disputed election because of fraud.

Getting the Guardians to examine the election results at all took a great deal of pressure.

When Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei first announced Ahmadinejad’s victory, he defiantly called the election a “divine assessment” and certified the results immediately.

But pressure from within the ruling clerical elite gave him pause.

The next day, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani announced with great fanfare that he was traveling to Qom, 80 miles south of Tehran, to convene the Assembly of Experts, a council of 86 top clerics who have the authority to name the supreme leader, or depose him.

Rafsanjani chairs the Assembly of Experts and said he wanted them to examine Khamenei’s decision to certify the election, giving rise to rumors that he was hoping to depose Khamenei as leader.

Monday’s massive demonstration also suggests that the Iranian people have loosened the shackles of fear, Kaveh Mohseni said.

In a third message to Iranians, Reza Pahlavi called on the police and security forces to “never forget that these demonstrators confronting you in the streets are your brothers and sisters who are fighting for your rights.”

Joining him was his mother, who spoke to the security forces “as a mother and as an Iranian” to encourage them “not to use violence against their brothers and sisters.”

Iranian political activists have long criticized Reza Pahlavi for his inaction, and U.S. government analysts say they doubt that he has many supporters inside Iran.

But the protests inside Iran go way beyond one person, one faction, or one party. They have become a national grass-roots movement, a budding revolt that could soon reach a tipping point. And a regime change could spark reform in other areas.

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer said, “Our only hope of changing the nuclear issue with Iran is not in the negotiations. It would be in the change of regime.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama’s birth certificate, many have asked me about the president’s possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence.

I think there are many plausible motives:

* Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life’s story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents
were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don’t know for sure who his mother is.

* Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the "certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website.

* Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along – a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution.

What do I mean by that last possibility?

Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn’t Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens.

Start your own elibibility billboard campaign in your neighborhood with WND’s new yard signs, asking: "Where’s the Birth Certificate?"

On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen."

It’s interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate."

And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew – or should have known – that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain’s.

Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicted it would take two to tango.

He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain’s eligibility to serve as president.

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff responded – again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens.

And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too."

By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" – the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Now, I don’t know who Barack Obama’s parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I’ve seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama’s birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all.

But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii!

So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president.

If he is to be judged by the same standard as his opponent in the race, there is no way he qualifies. That’s what Leahy said. That’s what Chertoff said. That’s what the law says.

A logical question naturally follows: Why didn’t the Congress of the United States hold hearings on Obama’s eligibility when they did so on McCain’s eligibility?

I’m still trying to figure that one out. Maybe the answer is this simple: Because there’s no way Obama would have qualified.

Another logical question follows: Why is this man still serving in the White House and turning the country upside down when he is not even constitutionally eligible?

That’s the heart and soul of the campaign I’ve been running.

By the way, further establishing that it was impossible for Obama to have been a "natural born citizen" are some astonishing words found on his own campaign website. They indicate that Obama was "at birth" a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Great Britain. Why did the founders insist upon a "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution? To avoid questions of divided loyalties. (Just scroll down the webpage and read the FactCheck.org excerpt to see this amazing admission for yourself.)

So, again, I ask: Why doesn’t Obama want to reveal his real birth certificate? Because he wants this discussion of eligibility to go away – once and for all. It is a vulnerability he cannot explain away. So he would rather not discuss it at all.

But let me remind you all, in case you hadn’t considered this: Obama plans to run for re-election in 2012. And that’s why we can never, ever let this matter rest.

Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin filed two reports exposing gross misappropriation of federal AmeriCorps funds by a prominent Barack Obama supporter and was shortly thereafter fired by the White House, circumstances he told WND are likely linked and others have called an outright illegal action by the administration.

"I think you have to look at the facts and the circumstances and reach your conclusions," Walpin said in a WND interview. "I will tell you that [my firing] came only after we had issued those two reports to Congress, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence."

Further, Walpin said, "I am convinced that I and my office are not guilty of any impropriety. In essence, I was fired for doing my job."

Independent, federal inspectors general are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by the then-Senator Barack Obama – to ensure that they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.

But after Walpin dared to push for action against the St. HOPE Academy program – run by Obama supporter and former NBA star Kevin Johnson – which had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal AmeriCorps funds, he nonetheless found himself fired by the White House under circumstances that have led some to wonder if Obama has violated his own co-sponsored law in retaliation.

"There are two big questions about the president’s actions," writes Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. "One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?"

Discover how government is grinding away Americans’ individual liberties in "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws."

Radio talk host Rush Limbaugh fired off an answer to York’s questions on his program yesterday:

"Firing an inspector general is a big deal. If you’ll remember, Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics," Limbaugh commented. "This is big. This is political cronyism, power and so forth. … I’m telling you, firing an I.G., because they’re not political, it is a much bigger deal than replacing United States attorneys."

Furthermore, Limbaugh stated, the unusual circumstances surrounding the night before Walpin’s dismissal constitutes a clear violation of the very law Obama helped to pass as a senator.

"The Obama administration did it overnight," Limbaugh stated. "[It] broke the law firing the AmeriCorps I.G."

According to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Obama, inspectors general do not serve at the president’s pleasure and therefore cannot be fired without 30 days notice and written cause for the decision sent to Congress.

The firing of Walpin, however, took on a very different form.

Walpin confirmed to WND that on Wednesday evening earlier this week, he received a sudden and unexpected ultimatum from White House counsel Norman L. Eisen: Resign with the hour or suffer being fired.

Walpin refused to resign, replying in an email, "It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated – and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity – if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request."

The next day the administration nonetheless fired Walpin and sent a letter to Congress citing as its only reason for the dismissal, "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who also co-sponsored the Inspector General Reform Act, immediately protested the White House’s action.

"I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley stated in a letter to the president. "Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all inspectors general and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley’s letter reminded Obama of the statute requiring the president to submit 30-days notice to Congress of an inspector general’s dismissal and stated, "No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance."

"We cannot afford to have inspector general independence threatened," Grassley concluded. "In light of the massive increases in federal spending of late, it is more critical than ever that we have an inspector general community that is vigorous, independent and active in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you co-sponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any inspector general."

The White House then clarified two issues, explaining that Walpin was not immediately fired, but suspended for 30 days of paid leave as a countdown to his official release, and that his dismissal, indeed, was related to the Johnson investigation.

In a written response to Sen. Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited an ethics complaint filed against Walpin by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown.

Brown had had declined to file criminal charges against Johnson, who was elected in November as mayor of Sacramento, or the St. HOPE Academy, but did reach a settlement requiring the organization to pay back over $400,000 of $850,000 in grants it was given through the AmeriCorps program.

Both Grassley’s letter and Walpin, however, pointed out that the inspector general has not been found guilty of any misconduct, and the charges are disputed.

"I have been performing – and my office has been performing – its work with the highest integrity, in the spirit of an independent office, calling the shots as it sees them," Walpin told WND. "The integrity committee will decide the merits of the complaint, but what troubles me is that the White House is apparently relying on the complaint. At this point, it is before an adjudicatory body, and if the White House felt it couldn’t wait for that decision, it should have at least waited for me to come in and provide my factual response, so it could consider it. It did not."

And while Walpin has been guarded in responses to the media, refraining from commenting on his future plans or even accusing the president of firing him for political reasons, he did share with WND that he believes Obama has compromised the independent integrity of the office of inspector general.

"I am sorry for what I believe to be clear interference with the institution of the inspector general," Walpin said. "And I am sorry for the people in my office, who I respect. I took the position because I believed when the president called upon me, it was a great opportunity to give something back to this country. I have done what I believe is right, and I will go on."

While nearly 400,000 concerned citizens demand President Obama present his elusive "long-form" birth certificate, more than a dozen other documents remain unreleased or otherwise blocked from the public eye.

Numerous documents which have yet to be surrendered include the following.

Obama kindergarten records

The Maui News reported that Obama attended kindergarten at Noelani Elementary School on Oahu during the school year 1966-67. It released a photo of two teachers, Katherine Nakamoto and Aimee Yatsushiro, with five students. The teachers claim one of the children is Barack Obama.

According to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register. Parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country.

So far, no records have been released by the school. Noelani Elementary School officials have not responded to WND’s request for comment.

Punahou School records

Punahou’s alleged 1979 yearbook photo of Obama playing basketball

Though from a modest background, Obama began attending the prestigious Punahou School in Honolulu, one of Hawaii’s top private institutions. He reportedly received a scholarship and attended the school from the fifth grade until he finished high school, though no financial records have been released.

The Boston Globe reported, "In 1979, the year Obama graduated, tuition for high school students at Punahou was $1,990, a sizable expense compared with Hawaii’s median family income of $22,750 that year.

Obama, reportedly a "B" student, studied among the island’s richest and most accomplished students. According to the school’s website, he also played forward on Punahou’s 1979 state championship basketball team.

Occidental College records

Obama arrived at Occidental College, a small liberal arts school in Los Angeles, Calif., in the fall of 1979. He only briefly mentions the school in his 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father."

Obama attended the school on a scholarship. Some question whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students. Financial records have not been released.

In a legal action, handled largely by Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, officials at Occidental College were served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national.

Kreep petitioned the college with a demand for its records concerning Obama.

Occidental College library

"The gravamen of the petition is the question as to whether United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, of Illinois, is eligible to serve as president of the United States pursuant to the requirements for that office in the United States Constitution," he wrote. "The records sought may provide documentary evidence, and/or admissions by said defendant, as to said eligibility or lack thereof."

College officials then contacted Obama’s lawyers, who argued to the court that the election was over and that future concerns should be addressed to Congress.

The motion stated that the records, which could reveal on what name Obama attended classes at Occidental and whether he attended on scholarship money intended for foreign students, "are of no relevance to this moot litigation."

The motion also claimed the petitioners failed to serve the subpoena properly.

"The subpoena directed to Occidental College should therefore be quashed. Alternatively, this court should issue an order directing that the deposition of the custodian of records of Occidental College not take place," the firm working on Obama’s behalf stated.

"The central issue in this lawsuit … is whether any Respondent had a legal duty to demand proof of natural born citizenship from Democratic Party’s nominee," the motion said. "None of the documents sought by petitioners could possibly assist in answering this question."

A judge granted a motion to quash the subpoena.

"Obama’s attorneys bent over backward to block us," Kreep told WND. "Obama doesn’t want anyone to see those records. He’s trying to hide them."

His efforts resulted in a threat from Obama’s attorneys to seek financial sanctions against the plaintiff’s lawyers.

Kreep said a notice of appeal will be filed next week.

A notice posted on the Occidental College website states, "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations protect the privacy of student education records. We, therefore, cannot disclose students’ classes, grade point averages, majors or other such information."

Columbia University records

Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University in 1981, at the age of 20.

According to the New York Times, Obama "suggests in his book that his years in New York were a pivotal period: He ran three miles a day, buckled down to work and ’stopped getting high,’ which he says he had started doing in high school. Yet he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."

Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told the newspaper in October 2007, "He doesn’t remember the names of a lot of people in his life."

In a 2005 profile in a Columbia alumni magazine, Obama called his time at the school "an intense period of study."

"I spent a lot of time in the library. I didn’t socialize that much. I was like a monk," he said.

Obama claimed to be a part of the Black Student Organization and anti-apartheid activities. But according to the New York Times, several well-known student leaders did not recall his involvement.

Fox News made contact with 400 of Obama’s classmates. No one remembered him.

The Columbia University chapter in Obama’s life remains blank, according to the New York Sun.

"The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago," the Sun reported in September 2008. "The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public."

When the newspaper inquired, the Obama campaign did not offer an explanation for why the transcript had not been released.

According to the New York Sun, a program from Columbia’s 1983 commencement ceremony lists Obama as a graduate. University spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated with a major in political science but without honors. Nonetheless, he was later admitted to Harvard Law School.

Columbia thesis "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"

Before applying to Harvard, Obama is said to have written a major thesis in his senior year. It has not been released.

An Oct 30, 2007, a New York Times article stated, "[Obama] barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament."

Former Columbia professor, Michael Baron, told NBC News Obama excelled in his year-long honors seminar called American Foreign Policy.

He also said Obama spent a whole year writing a "thesis" or "senior thesis" on the topic of nuclear negotiations with the former Soviet Union.

"My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States," Baron told reporters in an e-mail. "At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other … For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage. As I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack got an A."

Baron said he saved Obama’s paper and recently searched through boxes hoping to find it, but he told reporters he may have thrown it away during a move several years ago.

Baron wrote a letter of recommendation when Obama applied to Harvard Law School. According to Federal Election Commission records, he also donated at least $1,250 to Obama’s presidential campaign.

On July 24, 2008, the Obama administration told NBC News Obama was unable to release copies of his thesis paper.

"We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

According to MSNBC, Columbia University officials claim they do not have a copy available in the college’s archives.

Harvard Law School records

With less than steller marks upon his graduation from Columbia, Obama was accepted into Harvard Law School.

WND columnist Jack Cashill wrote, "If Obama’s LSAT scores merited admission (to Harvard), we would know about them. We don’t. The Obama camp guards those scores, like his SAT scores, more tightly that Iran does its nuclear secrets."

He continued, "We know enough about Obama’s Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard."

Cashill wrote, Khalid al-Mansour, principle adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama’s behalf. Al-Mansour reportedly mentored founders of the Black Panther party in the early 1960s.

Cashill suggests Obama’s "shyness" about his Harvard experience may stem from his reluctance to broadcast his connections.

According to Politico, Obama’s name does not appear on any legal scholarships during his time at Harvard. His campaign reportedly said his Harvard education was a product of hard work and student loans. Obama graduated magna cum laude in 1991.

Harvard Law Review articles

In 1990, Obama beat out 18 other contenders to become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, where he spent at least 50 hours a week editing submissions from judges, scholars and authors.

According to Politico, there were "eight dense volumes produced during his time in charge there – 2,083 pages in all."

Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told Politico Obama didn’t write any articles for the Review, but he did leave behind numerous case analyses and unsigned "notes" from Harvard students.

As Matthew Franck noted in National Review Online, "A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time."

Susan Estrich, the first female president of the Review who served 14 years earlier, said Obama must have had something published that year, even if his campaign denied it.

"They probably don’t want [to] have you [reporters] going back" to examine the Review, she said.

However, Politico later reported it had unearthed a 1990 article that "offers a glimpse at Obama’s views on abortion policy and the law during his student days."

His six-page summary answers a legal question about whether fetuses should be allowed to file lawsuits against their mothers.

"Obama’s answer, like most courts’: No," Politico reported. "He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother’s rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy."

The report continued, "His article acknowledged a public interest in the health of the fetus, but also seemed to demonstrate his continuing commitment to abortion rights, and suggested that the government may have more important concerns than ‘ensuring that any particular fetus is born.’"

Despite its earlier statement, the Obama campaign later confirmed Obama’s authorship of the article and claimed it was the only piece he had written for the Review.

University of Chicago scholarly articles

Obama lectured at the University of Chicago Law School, a top school where the faculty is known for voluminous scholarly publishing, from 1992 until 2004.

The university offered Obama a full-time tenure-track position, an honor typically reserved for published instructors. However, reporters have been unable to find scholarly articles authored by him. The university reports that Obama declined the tenure offer.

Sarah Galer, news editor at the Law School and Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, told WND, "President Obama wrote ‘Dreams from My Father’ while at the law school but did not produce any scholarly articles as far as I know."

Passport

According to March 2008 reports, State Department employees conducted an unauthorized search of Obama’s passport files during the recent presidential campaign. CNN reported that three different contract workers accessed his information on separate occasions – Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14 – without authorization. Two workers were fired and another faced discipline.

Obama’s files reportedly contained copies of passport applications, birth date, basic biographical information, records of passport renewal and possibly citizenship information.

The Obama campaign demanded a thorough investigation to determine which employees looked at the file and why.

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton told CNN in a statement. "Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes."

Meanwhile, a key witness who had been cooperating with federal investigators was later found fatally shot in front of a Washington, D.C., church. A police officer found the body of Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, slumped dead inside his car.

At the time, investigators said they didn’t have any information connecting the murder to the passport case. After one year of investigation of the homicide, there have been no arrests.

The passport has not been released.

Medical records

During his first presidential campaign in 1999, Sen. John McCain released 1,500 pages of medical and psychiatric records collected by the Navy. In 2008, McCain allowed reporters to spend three hours sifting through 1,200 pages of health records.

In 1999, former Vice President Al Gore released medical records revealing "mildly elevated" cholesterol levels and removal of a common form of skin cancer from his forehead in 1997. The documents disclosed his weight, resting heart rate, resting blood pressure, cardiovascular fitness and a variety of other health details. Gore’s records were compiled after a complete physical examination by several military physicians.

Likewise, President George W. Bush allowed the media to view about 400 pages of personal medical information in 2000 and 2004.

After initial reluctance, Sen. John Kerry allowed the Navy to release his full medical records in 2004.

While not all have done so, it has been common practice for presidential candidates to release medical records.

However, Barack Obama, a relatively young candidate who was said to have been in "excellent health," refused to release medical records. Instead, he simply provided a six-paragraph note from his physician briefly summarizing 21 years of doctor visits and health information.

The letter contained no supporting documentation.

Other documents

According to additional records listed at the Obama File Report, other documents that remain unreleased include:

* Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004

* Obama’s client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard

* Illinois State Bar Association records

* Baptism records

* Obama/Dunham marriage license

* Obama/Dunham divorce documents

* Soetoro/Dunham marriage license

* Adoption records

Birth certificate

WND has been reporting since before the election on questions – and lawsuits – raised over Obama’s birth and eligibility. He reported in his book he was born in Hawaii and his half-sister agrees. But the woman the president says is his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, claimed to have been present at her grandson’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 380,000 others and sign up now!

Barack Obama

Complicating the issue are Obama’s move to Indonesia as a child, where he reportedly attended that nation’s public schools, and his later travels to Pakistan, raising questions about on what nation’s passport was that travel accomplished. Then there are the multiple law firms hired to make certain Obama’s long-form birth certificate information, and other documentation such as college records, remain sealed from public view.

Obama’s presidential campaign released to select news organizations only what is known as a "certification of live birth," a document obtainable in Hawaii in 1961 by Americans actually born outside the country. However, Joseph Farah, WND editor and chief executive officer, has been calling for the release of Obama’s long-form birth certificate showing the hospital of his birth, attending physician and other details to confirm his citizenship status.

Farah launched a national billboard campaign last month in an effort to keep the issue before the American people. The billboards, being leased around the country, ask the simple question, "Where’s the birth certificate?" Farah is asking the public to support his campaign with donations. So far, more than $75,000 has been collected.

The billboard campaign followed one launched months earlier to collect the names on an electronic petition demanding accountability and transparency on the issue. So far, that petition has gathered nearly 400,000 names.

The campaign got a boost recently when WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, why the president wouldn’t release his birth certificate. Gibbs’ response was covered live on C-SPAN and by Fox News Channel and others – excluding CBS.

It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen."

Congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," but no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent "truth and transparency campaign."

The first sign to be posted under the campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La.. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing three more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles, another in Orange County, Calif. and a third in Pennsylvania.

Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama’s background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’ as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama’s promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."

Well, I’m glad that’s over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims’ hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama’s speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims’ historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn’t colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven’t the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don’t have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America’s invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan — nor any country — attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 — and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that’s the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses — really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs — to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn’t say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler — who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so — was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn’t. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we’ll see how many women — outside of an American college campus — "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren’t afraid of us; they’re afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran’s quest for nuclear "power," while attacking — brace yourself — America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA’s taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament — but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah’s choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals’ favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA’s greatest accomplishments isn’t just crazy, it’s Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait — how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can’t the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I’m sure Iran’s compliance will be policed as well as North Korea’s was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn’t build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn’t dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They’re not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world’s oil and gas reserves. That’s not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama’s "I’m OK, You’re OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren’t so terrifying.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Tuesday June 9th entitled, The Media Fall for Phony ‘Jobs’ Claims: The Obama Numbers Are Pure Fiction.

Obama has the unmitigated gall to claim that he has saved 150,000 jobs and that spending more money will "save or create" another 600,000 jobs. There is absolutely no way to measure such numbers. Never mind that we don’t even have the money to spend in the first place to "save or create" another 600,000 imaginary jobs.

Tony Fratto, senior member of the White House communications shop under Bush stated, "We would never have used a formula like ’save or create,’"… "To begin with, the number is pure fiction — the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being ’saved.’ And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

The President must think Americans are stupid and that we will buy everything this self-proclaimed "Messiah’s" teleprompter tells him to say. Of course, he knows that the Government-run media will never expose these fallacious claims for what they are—Lies. After all, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas recently declared on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." And we know that the real God doesn’t lie.

AND …

In a recent interview with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama was doing such a good job of destroying the country that: "If al-Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they better hurry, because Obama is beating them to it." Limbaugh prefaced those remarks by saying that he had thought carefully about that statement in anticipation of his interview with Hannity.

AND …

Yes folks, we have a President who thinks he can stimulate the economy by printing more "money," raising your taxes, and spending our grand children’s inheritance to win the votes of illegal immigrants, dead people, and Democrats. Furthermore, he can’t prove he was born in America. We know he lived in Kenya, so it’s quite possible that this is his home country. Therefore, somewhere in Kenya, a village must be missing its idiot!

If you are Muslim and like his recent speech then please make him a citizen of your country and keep him there. He is one of you. He is not one of us. He has only one goal and that is to take over the world as a one world government. He will do it by lying and saying whatever is necessary.

He is like a 3 year old child that has no ability except to lie. His wife is the same way. No not believe either one of them. His ability to run the government of the United States is non-existent. He has no idea what he is going and neither does his buddies from Harvard. They are just playing games with the American people. His entire cabinet and officials are made up of criminals and crooks.

The American people are fed up with his life, attitude, and record. If he is allowed to continue on the path he is on then he will intentionally destroy the United States. Osama bin Laden will be proud of him. The American people will remove him from office and he will be remembered as a bad taste from a bad hangover.

(c) copyright 2009 Ray Holt

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us (Russia) about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blinds the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox (Russian Orthodox) churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more than ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.

Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence – with minor edits – of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?

For years, we’ve had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.

Why aren’t liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.

According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion – which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

Open your eyes to the ugliness inside the abortion industry with "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice"

In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.

Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.

So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life – and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller – only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.

But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they’d like to send to Guantanamo.

Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother’s womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists – not a squeamish bunch – in the entire country would perform them.

Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother’s life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: 1) forked over $5,000; and 2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller’s view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.

In return for blood money from Tiller’s profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.

In 1997, the Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton’s White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals’ protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller’s abortion mill.

Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her health and human services secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.

Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller’s blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.

But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.

Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller’s fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.

The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we’re deciding who does and doesn’t have an "absolute right to be born," who’s to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?

I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, then don’t shoot one.

Posted: June 01, 2009 9:07 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Obama administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States that killed almost 3,000 Americans, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Through its solicitor general, Elena Kagan, the Obama administration has asked that the Saudis be held immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, even though there is ample U.S. evidence of complicity by the Saudi government and the named princes in support of al-Qaida’s terrorist attack.

While the FSIA generally protects a sovereign state, there are exceptions under which its provisions can be invoked. Such interpretations are left largely to the courts to determine.

Families of the 9/11 victims, however, have expressed outrage over the Obama administration’s filing. They regard the action as undermining the continuing fight on terror.

In its recent filing of an "amicus curiae" brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in "Federal Insurance Co. vs. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," the Obama administration asked the court to deny a petition for a "writ of certiorari" or higher court hearing by the families of the victims of 9/11 in their effort to sue Saudi Arabia and its princes.

In the original case filed in 2006, the families of the 9/11 victims allege that Saudi Arabia and four Saudi princes acting in their capacity as high-level government officials and as individuals made donations to charitable organizations with the knowledge that those charities were diverting funds to al-Qaida. In response, the Saudi government invoked the FSIA as a basis to preclude a lawsuit by the 9/11 victims’ families.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

In August 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in dismissing the claim against Saudi Arabia. The dismissal covered the four princes, a Saudi banker and a Saudi charity. In addition, the appeals court said that the exceptions to immunity didn’t apply since the State Department had not designated Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

There appears, however, to be a possible conflict in what the FSIA allows and a portion of a U.S. statute (28USC1605(a)) which states, in effect, that a foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if the attack and funding for it occurred in the U.S.

"Although the United States disagrees in certain respects with the analysis of the court of appeals, further review by this Court to determine the best legal basis for that immunity is unwarranted," Kagan wrote.

Fifteen of the 19 terrorists who hijacked U.S. aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were from Saudi Arabia and were affiliated with al-Qaida. Intelligence and past actions link the Saudi government and the four princes with al-Qaida.

"In effect, the U.S. Government announced its opposition to allowing 9/11 victims and their families full access to the U.S. legal system in (the government’s) effort to protect Saudi Arabia and its princes from being held accountable for their role in the attack on the United States," said Peter Leitner, who has assisted terror victims’ families successfully in suing terrorist organizations for the past 12 years.

"As power of Attorney for the family and estate of John P. O’Neill, former FBI (counter-terrorism) expert, I find it disgusting that the Obama administration has spat in the faces of these victims just as (Obama) prepares to leave for Egypt and Saudi Arabia while advocating for the closing of (the U.S. Guantanamo prison in Cuba) and giving full access to the U.S. court system to the terrorists currently imprisoned there," he said.