OBAMA'S POLICY COMES FROM TERRORISTS AND THEIR ENABLERS

Another stunner behind Obama's Libya doctrine - You won't believe who helped devise policy used by president

By Aaron Klein

Hanan Ashrawi

TEL AVIV – A staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late PLO leader Yasser Arafat served on the committee that invented the military doctrine used by President Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

As WND first reported, billionaire philanthropist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the world's leading organization pushing the military doctrine. Several of the doctrine's main founders sit on multiple boards with Soros.

The doctrine and its founders, as WND reported, have been deeply tied to Obama aide Samantha Power, who reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya. Power is the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Now it has emerged that Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi served on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect.

That commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term "Responsibility to Protect," while defining its guidelines.

Ashrawi is an infamous defender of Palestinian terrorism. Her father, Daoud Mikhail, was a co-founder of the PLO with Arafat. The PLO was engaged in scores of international terrorist acts and was declared a terrorist group by the U.S. in 1987.

During the First Palestinian Intifada, or war of "resistance" against Israel, in 1988, Ashrawi joined what was known as the Intifada Political Committee, which sought to advance Palestinian goals through both politics and "resistance." She served there until 1993.

In 1991, Arafat appointed Ashrawi to serve as the PLO's Minister of Higher Education and Research. The Palestinian school system is notorious for its glorification of "martyrdom," or suicide bombings, and has long preached against the existence of Israel.


"Discover the Networks" notes Ashrawi has long defended the Hamas terror group as a legitimate component of the Palestinian "political spectrum."

She has stated she does not "think of Hamas as a terrorist group."

"We coordinate [with Hamas] politically," she said in April 1993, "the people we know and talk to are not terrorists."

In 1998 Ashrawi founded MIFTAH, a nonprofit that seeks to undermine Israel's legitimacy and refers to that Jewish state's 1948 creation as "Al Nakba," or "The Catastrophe."

Ashrawi has long been a Holocaust denier. In the July 2, 1998, edition of the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, she published an article calling the Holocaust "a deceitful myth, which the Jews have … exploited to get sympathy."

In 2001 Ashrawi became a spokeswoman for the Arab League.

Notably, Amre Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, served as an adviser to the same 2001 commission that invented the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.

Ashrawi, meanwhile, was a protégé and later colleague and close friend of late Columbia University Professor Edward Said, another notorious apologist for Palestinian terrorism.

Said was replaced by Rashid Khalidi, a close personal friend to Obama.

Soros funded doctrine

With Ashrawi on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.


In his address to the nation on Monday, Obama specifically cited the military doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Indeed, the Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of "Responsibility to Protect."

"Responsibility to Protect," or "Responsibility to Act" as cited by Obama is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has also been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine.

Two of global group's advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the "Responsibility" doctrine, with the duo even coining the term "Responsibility to Protect."

Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."

Obama cited doctrine multiple times

Aside from his direct citation of the "Responsibility" doctrine in his address explaining why the U.S. is acting against Libya, Obama alluded to the doctrine four more times in his speech.

The following are relevant excerpts from his address, with references to U.S. "responsibility" in bold:

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.

Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians.

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

Alan Note: Coming to America when other countries, mandated by the UN and the Arab League,  invade us for not becoming Moslems and failing to allow Sharia law to govern us?!

"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict," he concluded.

More Soros ties

Responsibility founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chair, with Gregorian on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "Responsibility to Protect."

In his capacity as co-chair, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility."

Evans presented "Responsibility to Protect" at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.

Evans sits on multiple boards with Soros, including the Clinton Global Initiative.

Thakur is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.

Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian (pro-Iran) opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND also reported the crisis group has also petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

'One World Order'

WND also reported that doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

"Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote in a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.

"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."

Power pushes doctrine

Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power. (Being viewed to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State!!) 

Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the "Responsibility to Protect" principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu.

Then last November, at the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of the White House, argued for the use of "Responsibility to Protect" alongside Evans.


With research by Chris Elliott
Read more: Another stunner behind Obama's Libya doctrine http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=281065#ixzz1IUwgigQG

LIBYA SHOWS HOW GOOFY INTERVENTION HAS BECOME

By Don Feder



What’s even more absurd and futile than going to war to spread democracy and advance human rights? Intervention to stop regimes from “killing their own people.”


This is the sole rationale offered for Obama’s Libya excursion (Operation Odyssey Dawn even sounds like a Carnival Cruise ship) – to keep a tyrant from killing his own people.


British Prime Minister David Cameron declares: “Colonel Gaddafi has made this happen. We can not allow the slaughter of civilians to continue.”


While criticizing the way the mission was undertaken (and telling the president he “must do a better job of communicating to the American people”), House Speaker John Boehner – de facto chairman of the Obama Reelection Campaign – nevertheless insists: “It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Gaddafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.” From this beastly behavior, you will desist at once!


On March 19, Barack Obama said he had authorized a limited military action “to protect Libyan civilians.”


In the four decades Col. Gaddafi has been in power, how many of his “own people” do you think he’s murdered? In the past, we bombed him exactly once, not for killing his people but for killing our people – after the 1986 Berlin nightclub bombing, where two U.S. servicemen died.


The killing-his-own-people standard is applied with excruciating selectivity. The odds that we’ll keep a particular people from being butchered by a particular tyrant are comparable to winning the grand prize in a multi-state lottery.


• In 2009, Ahmadinejad was killing demonstrators in the streets of Tehran. As many as 150 died. Unlike the Libyan regime, nuclear-armed Iran really does pose a clear and present danger. Far from authorizing air strikes, it took our president weeks to work up the courage to condemn the slaughter.


• Over the course of three months in 1994, 800,000 Rwandans died in a tribal bloodbath. Other than offering humanitarian support – and singing “Toot, Toot Tutsi Goodbye!” – the West did nothing.


• On the night of June 3-4, 1989, the People’s Liberation Army liberated from their earthly existence 3,000 pro-democracy protestors in Tiananmen Square. Over the past decade, the regime has tortured to death an additional 3,400 of its own people who were members of the Falun Gong meditation cult. The PRC is our second largest trading partner and President Hu Jintao is an honored guest at the White House.


• During the 1990s, Kim Jong-Il, the evil madman who holds North Korea hostage, killed between 900,000 and 3.5 million of his own people in a state-sponsored famine. Instead of Tomahawk missiles up the keester, Kim got bribes to keep him from developing and/or proliferating nuclear weapons.


And still the administration, its media lackeys, and European amnesiacs offer the moral imperative of protecting Libyan civilians as the casus belli for the second most senseless humanitarian intervention this nation has undertaken.


The first came under another leftwing Democratic president. In 1999, then-President William Hefner Clinton dove into bed with the Islamists of the Kosovo Liberation Army. (Maybe he missed Monica.) In the 78 days we shocked and awed Yugoslavia, 3,000 civilians died.


We were there, Clinton informed us, to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanian Muslims by Serbian Christians. When NATO turned Kosovo over to the KLA, none of the alleged mass graves were found. The ethnic cleansing came later, when victorious Albanians drove 277,000 Serbs from their homes, two-thirds of the province’s pre-war population.


In December 2010, a report by the Council of Europe charged Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim (the Snake) Thaci with harvesting the organs of Serb prisoners murdered for that purpose.


Aren’t humanitarian interventions fun?


Which brings us to the first intervention the community organizer can truly call his own. Operation Charlie Sheen is run by Barrack, Hillary, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and their joint chiefs of staff – Larry, Moe and Curly.


According to a story in the March 22 Washington Times, “observers” believe it will be hard to reach an agreement among coalition partners “given the divergence of opinion” about what they want to happen. (Gaddafi goes. Gaddafi stays but stops killing his own people. Gaddafi becomes a contestant on Dancing With the Stars.) Our French coalition partners are confused. They don't know who to surrender to.


Obama got us into this mess armed with a resolution of the U.N. Security Council (10-0 vote, with China and Russia abstaining) and an “Allah-be-praised” from the Arab League, whose members are willing to sit back and see the infidels bloody the tyrant for the sake of the jihadists.


I didn’t know Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League the power to declare war. That must mean the European Union has the authority to levy taxes, the power to confirm judicial appointments is vested in the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Grand Duchy of Fenwick enforces U.S. immigration law.


In some ways, Libya isn’t as bad as the Egyptian intervention, in others, much worse. (We didn’t bomb the Egyptian Army because then-President Hosni Mubarak was killing his own people.)


Mubarak was definitely our bastard.


Caroline Glick writes in a March 21 column in The Jerusalem Post: “Under Mubarak, Egypt advanced U.S. interests in two main ways. First by waging war against the Muslim Brotherhood and opposing the rise of Iranian power in the region, Mubarak weakened regional forces that most threatened U.S. interests. Second, by managing the Suez Canal in conformance with international maritime law, Egypt facilitated the smooth transport of petroleum products to global markets and prevented Iran from operating in the Mediterranean Sea.”


Thanks to our Special-Olympics intervention, the Muslim Brotherhood is now the most powerful political force in the nation, as the March 19 referendum on constitutional amendments demonstrated.


Egypt’s newly appointed foreign minister has called for opening the nation’s border with Hamas-infested Gaza, to facilitate the flow of arms. And Egypt’s ruling coalition is allowing Iranian ships – carrying weapons to Hamas – to traverse the Suez Canal without being inspected. Where do you think Palestinian terrorists (a redundancy, I know) got the long-range Iranian Grad-type rockets they recently fired into Be’er Sheva?


Isn’t intervention fun?


Unlike Mubarak, you can’t say the Colonel is our bastard. (Reagan called him a “mad dog.”) But for the past 15 years or so, he’s been a remarkably well-behaved bastard. After 9/11, he saw which way the wind was blowing over the sand dunes, gave up his WMD programs, renounced terrorism, paid billions in reparations to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and acted as a bulwark against al-Qaeda in his region (out of self-interest to be sure).


On the other side of the Libyan civil war, the rebels are supported by al-Qaeda. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center notes that most of the Libyans fighting our forces in Iraq come from rebel strongholds.


As of Tuesday, we had fired 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Gaddafi’s military installations, each costing $1.16 million. It will cost an estimated $400 million to $800 million just to establish the no-fly zone, and as much as $100 million a week to maintain it.


This is small change compared to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan – denominated in dollars and blood.


March 20 marked the 8th anniversary of our long march into the Iraq morass. The net result: 4,500 dead Americans, 67,500 dead Iraqis and 50,000 troops still stationed in the country. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of Operation Enduring Bankruptcy, projected through 2017 (the target date of our withdrawal), at $2.4 trillion – somewhere around 17% of the current National Debt.


We deep-sixed Saddam, killed a lot of terrorists and gave Iraq the semblance of democracy – which will last until the last U.S. soldier departs. The loveable Iraqis reciprocated by killing and terrorizing the nation’s Christian population.


Going into Iraq was probably the right thing to do. (I’m having doubts about that too.) Staying for 8 years seems a folly comparable to Napoleon’s invasion of Russia.


But why run just one war when you can do two simultaneously? Afghanistan has cost over 1,550 American lives and $101 billion so far. Obama increased our troop strength to 100,000. Last year, terrorist attacks increased 64% and 2,777 civilians died.


If Iraq is Mission Impossible, Afghanistan has become Mission The-Road-to-Hell-is-Paved-With-Good-Intensions. In the 19th century it was a British graveyard. In the 1970s and 80s, it was Moscow’s mausoleum.


Its denizens are the raw material for democracy the way Mel Gibson is in line for a brotherhood award.


The Roman Empire bled to death on hundreds of foreign battlefields. (Its politicians helped at home, with taxes and inflation. Sound familiar?) Is there a Latin term for mission creep?


Obama’s Libyan adventure will be worth the cost if it sparks an authentic, no-holds-barred, everything-on-the-table debate about military interventions.


Humanitarian intervention (stop-him-from-killing-his-own-people), intervention to spread democracy and uphold human rights (as Bush ’43 so cluelessly put it in his second inaugural address, “The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in our world”) make as much sense as Obama’s Shiite health care program.


There is one, and only one, reason to use the U.S. military overseas. It’s called Operation You-Better-Be-Damn-Sure-Our-National-Interests-Are-At-Stake.


Operation Odyssey Dawn will go down in history as one of the high points in a presidency that has brought us unemployment hovering around 10%, a 21.4% increase in federal spending, the only three trillion-plus budget deficits, the federal abandonment of traditional marriage, race-based justice and suing Arizona for trying to keep out criminal aliens.


Will Barack Obama do more damage domestically or with his defense/foreign policy? It will be close – very close.
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com

OBAMA WAGES WAR ON MIDDLE CLASS

Obama's War on the Middle Class

By Jeffrey Folks

Whenever he is in campaign mode, President Obama goes to great lengths to remind voters that he is "struggling to defend the middle class." As he did in January 2010, Obama speaks of the middle class as "under assault" (by whom he does not specify). In his Labor Day radio address of 2010, he spoke of his "commitment to the middle class." As evidence of this commitment, Obama established a "Middle Class Task Force" early in his presidency chaired by Vice-President Biden. With Biden in charge, why worry?

It should be obvious that Obama and the left wing of the Democratic Party are not struggling to defend the middle class. Most of the time they are struggling to disenfranchise it by ignoring the basic rights of human liberty and of property that are guaranteed under our Constitution.

The 18% real rate of unemployment during Obama's first two years in office has not done much for the middle class. At the same time, there has been an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class to the underclass. ObamaCare, financial services reform, mortgage reform, education reform, tax reform: in all of these areas, the administration's efforts have been to create and expand services for the poor at the expense of the middle class.

Whether it is the free health care promised to tens of millions of new Medicaid recipients or mortgage principle reductions ("cramdowns") promoted at every turn by his Justice Department, Obama acts like a political general in the class war -- the war of the government services-dependent poor and unionized public sector against the middle class. Among the first acts of his administration were the expansion "making work pay" and child credit benefits: welfare of the sort that had been trimmed by the GOP Congresses of the 1990s.

Whether it is benefits for the underclass or more power for public sector unions, Obama is intent on cementing power based on the loyal support of the underclass and unionized labor. But to complete the task, he must deceive the middle classes for a bit longer by appearing to move to the center. The independent middle class voter, the very class of citizen that is most endangered by his presidency, is key to his reelection. In order to win reelection, he convince them he is safe.

But nothing Obama has done has benefited the middle class. That much should be clear just from what is happening with consumers' pocketbooks.

The recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report on consumer prices is a telling indication of the effects of Obama's policies on the middle class. During the past 12 months, gas prices are up nearly 20%. While global markets largely determine oil prices, Obama's assault on drilling and his weak-dollar policy have not helped things. Had the President pursued a pro-drilling policy and defended the dollar, gas prices would have been substantially lower. Even at this late date, if the administration were to signal support for expanded drilling, world energy markets would respond by lowering the price of oil, thus lowering the price the middle class pays at the pump.

Gas prices hit the middle class disproportionately hard. Bill Gates spends an infinitesimal portion of his earnings on energy bills, and the urban underclass pay little. But the middle class, most of whom commute some distance to work, are shelling out a great deal more each month. The same for food prices, which are up substantially above the "core rate" of inflation. The underclass benefit from increased food stamp subsidies; Gates has probably never shopped. It is the middle class that bears all the burdens under Obama.

The passage of ObamaCare was supposed to lower the cost of health care for practically all Americans. This, in fact, was one of the main rationales for its adoption. Again and again, Obama promised that his health care reform bill would lower the cost of health care -- by $100 billion (he likes big round numbers, for some reason), by $200 billion, by $500 billion over the next ten years.

But since ObamaCare was passed, health care costs for the middle class are way up. Over the past 12 months the cost of private medical insurance, where it can be purchased at all, is up by as much as 59%. Hospital costs are up 6%, nearly three times the rate of core inflation. The cost of the most widely prescribed drugs has increased well above the rate of inflation, driven up by the prospect of future government regulation. None of this has helped the middle class. It is, in fact, part and parcel of a calculated transfer of wealth from the middle class to the underclass.

It's not just energy and health care. Other prices that are influenced by government policy have gone up disproportionately to those in the less regulated market. Educational expenses are up 4%, twice the rate of core inflation. Again, it is the middle class that has been hit. College tuition, private school tuition, and child care -- these costs impact the middle class, not the Warren Buffets of the world, and not the underclass who receive full "need based" scholarships, magnet school preferences, and subsidized child care.

It does not help that, as announced Monday, sales of previously owned homes fell in February to their worst level in nine years. Middle-class homeowners who are now under water on their loans will have to wait a bit longer to break even. Boomers eyeing a place in the sun are going to have a hard time selling their current home before moving.

As Obama understands all too well, one of the hallmarks of all socialist countries is the absence of an independent middle class. From the Bolshevik experiment in Russia to socialist Venezuela today, it is necessary for communist leaders to eliminate that class of citizens who are not dependent on government for their welfare.

Political theorists from Aristotle to Locke understood that a truly independent and prosperous middle class was essential to the collective well-being of any society. The middle class has always, in every society, been characterized by qualities of social restraint and economic realism -- a shrewd and skeptical conservatism that serves to restrain the grandiose plans of utopian revolutionaries and embittered reactionaries alike.

Throughout its history American society in particular has been the beneficiary of an aspiring middle class whose efforts have created the world's greatest democracy. It is an ominous sign that the political left, with the loyal support of more than a third of our population, is intent on its destruction.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and article on American culture.



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

TRUE HISTORY OF OBA-HUSSEIN'S (mythical) PALESTINIAN BUDDIES

Back in early days of AntiMullah in 2006, we wrote and posted an in-depth article on the Palestinians.

I am not Jewish so had no personal axe to grind and just wanted to bring out the truth - whatever it was.

This is now in the old Archives, which Google apparently strips of formatting to reduce storage space.

Makes reading it a bit more difficult as it is now one long paragraph but all the information, still all valid, is there.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2006/08/u-p-d-t-e-d-palestinians-pure.html

For those interested in the progression of certain Middle East /Iran matters from pre-site 2004/05 posts transfered over and for most of 2006 before it became too burdensome to continue the special section, now click on the  Archives  link below to have a look at some interesting background articles:

http://view-archive-contents.blogspot.com/

=================

The Fogel family murders and Palestinian rejoicing photos

HISTORY OF MOHAMMAD & ISLAM

FULL ARTICLE: LONG & DETAILED

http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".



A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....
 
Muhammad led 27 military campaigns against innocent villages and caravans & planned 38 others

“I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies.” (Hadith)

We apologize to anyone who may be offended by the history of the founder of Islam (Muhammad) below. And we are aware of the sensitivities involved. However, infinitely more damage has been done to Islam's "believers" by Islam's history of withholding the truth about its founder to them -- - and the circumstances surrounding its inception -- than any "damage" this true history below can cause.

REAL ID ACT

By Tom DeWeese


How the U.S. Government Forged a Surveillance Society

On September 12, 2001, President George W. Bush invited members of Congress and the media for a meeting in the cabinet room of the White House. The mood was understandably anxious, somber: The World Trade Center lay in rubble, the Pentagon had a hole gouged into it and shock and awe had settled over the United States. One of the most extraordinary periods of American history � what would come to be known as the "Post 9-11 Era" � was beginning.

The president gravely laid out the situation and the steps his administration would take to secure the homeland, but during the course of the meeting he also made this significant declaration: "We will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms."

Those were heroic words of principle and patriotism in a traumatic time, but history would show that government's reaction to the terrorist threat was the exact opposite than the protection of freedoms. Instead, government rushed in with a massive plan to create a surveillance society, intending to watch and document every action by the American people as a means of ultimate security.

First, Congress passed the Patriot Act, giving law enforcement powers to circumvent many Constitutional guarantees to personal privacy and home security. Then Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department immediately became an army of more than 170,000 employees by combining twenty two existing federal agencies, including the

Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Secret Service, FEMA, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Customs Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection, Federal Protective Service, FBI's Computer Incident Response Center and several more lesser agencies of the same type. In the middle of this rush for security, Congress created the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). Also born in this Post 9/11 era were state fusion centers with the intention of combining federal, state and local law enforcement agencies into instant response teams, intending to eliminate bureaucratic overlap and red tape, in case of another terrorist attack or Hurricane Katrina-type disasters.

Finally, Congress passed the REAL ID Act, promoted as an attempt to standardize the process and format for creation of all state drivers' licenses to achieve increased security. Proponents argued that, under REAL ID, we will know that anyone carrying a drivers' license is legal in this country and therefore not a threat.

What most Americans do not know is that the blue print for REAL ID did not originate in the United States, but in the backrooms of a United Nations organization called the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). That organization is tasked with the goal of creating a once-size fits all international identification system using massive data banks that contain individual biometric information on nearly everyone in the world. Biometrics is defined as measurement of the body. One might correctly think of fingerprinting, iris scans and facial recognition as biometrics.

In compliance to this goal, REAL ID mandates a certain picture quality for all drivers' licenses. Those photos are to comply with the ICAO's Document 9303 biometric format. Your photo taken by a local DMV is run through special software which measures and analyzes the unique identifiable characteristics of your face. The process results in a unique numeric code which identifies a person according to facial measurements. In other words, under REAL ID, using the adopted standard of the ICAO, your face is reduced to a number code, a number which is read by a computer and be tracked by surveillance cameras worldwide.

Why would the United States agree to implement such a system? What happened to the promise that we would not let the terrorists change our way of life? How did the United States move from a free society, bent on preserving our freedoms in a dangerous terrorist-driven world to one of total surveillance over the actions of every citizen? What was the unseen hand that led to such decisions?

The international focus on drivers' licenses through REAL ID came as a result of plans for international biometric passports. Passports, of course, are a control device of travelers both coming and going through US borders. Discussion regarding the use of E-Passports started soon after 9/11. It was not until the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 that our federal government put in place the framework for the issuance of E-Passports. E-Passports utilize both biometric technology and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology.

Focusing on passports, however, was about to create an international problem for the US government that would force it to accelerate and expand its surveillance plans, leading to a global surveillance system beyond what most in Congress intended.

Using the excuse that the US government wanted to learn as much about Al- Qaeda as possible, the US began to dictate to foreign governments that they also needed to implement E-Passports. Without them, said the US, their citizens would not be able to enter the US. In addition, the US wanted those nations to provide all information they had on Al-Qaeda members.

Meanwhile, the United Nations set up a committee named simply "Al-Qaeda". Again, the stated goal was for all nations to cooperate in an Al-Qaeda clearing house of information. Each government was to provide the names of the members of Al-Qaeda that the respective governments were aware of.

What became obvious to many in our government was, if we expected information about citizens of other countries our government was also going to have to "ante up" and provide information about our citizens to the other nations. This is when things started to get out of control. Global information sharing was seen as a necessity. All "chips" were on the table. For the system to work the personal and sensitive information, including the biometrics of all citizens in all countries, had to be made available to intelligence and law enforcement people around the world.

Other nations resented the United States telling them that they must supply information about their citizens if the US wasn't willing to do the same. The US was forced to comply with its own dictates. And so the drive was on for the creation

of an international surveillance system. REAL ID, while not recommended by the 9/11 Commission, became the center piece for the drive to document each and every American and placed their biometric records in international data bases.

The Real ID Act of 2005 was signed into law in May, 2005. The rulemaking process took roughly 2 1⁄2 years to be completed. During that 2 1⁄2 years over six hundred groups and organizations came out against the law for a variety of reasons. These groups covered a broad political spectrum from the far right to the far left. Religious organizations representing all major religions spoke out against the Real ID Act.

Among the reasons for such overwhelming opposition is that Real ID is an unfunded federal mandate; the federal government intervening in the issuance of state driver's licenses; the unfettered power Real ID provides the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; a variety of privacy concerns; First Amendment religious concerns of which many were by Christian evangelical ministries; the state driver's license would become a de facto national identification card; and the requirement that each driver's license applicant would provide biometric samples.

In order for a state to be in compliance with the law, each state has 18 "benchmarks" they must complete or satisfy the Department of Homeland Security that the state is working towards completing the individual benchmarks. Opposition has been strong as 25 states, either as a result of law or resolution, opposed the Real ID Act. Because of the opposition, the Real ID Act implementation date has been postponed twice. However, proponents are determined to force implementation anyway and DHS demands that states comply by May, 2011.

If enforced, Americans will find what the saying "under government's thumb" really means. Biometric documents will be required for nearly every action Americans take. A digital/electronic footprint will be the only way to access bank accounts; accessing transportation (at any level); purchase of goods and services; obtaining employment; and so forth. Every one of these actions will be stored in databanks and transferred to international databanks for storage.

Along with REAL ID, more legislation is pending in Congress to create even more control, all sold as just another way to keep us secure. One piece calls for a "National Worker's Identification Card" and Senator Lieberman wants a new biometric social security card. If these proposals are passed into law and Real ID or anything else similar is in place it will be "game over". Employers and retailers will have to have biometric readers and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) scanners.

In addition, American law enforcement is being changed and with it, America's unique justice system is being changed too. Once law enforcements mission was to catch criminals after a crime was committed. And even those captured were protected as"innocent until proven guilty." That Constitutionally-protected rights made American justice unlike any other in the world. It has been one of the cornerstones of American freedom and security over freedoms and the less-certain future they offer.

We must remember that the stated goal for the total surveillance system has been that the world would be as one, carrying the same documents to assure everyone is equal, everyone is known, and everyone is legitimate. Under the system, say the proponents, security can be guaranteed.

So now the surveillance system is nearly fully in place. What are the results? Are we safer? The fact is, with all of the biometric data bases being established, RFID chips, Closed Circuit TVs, Automatic License Plate Readers, National Security Letters, State Fusion Centers, the Patriot Act, and the establishment of the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, we are not any safer than we were on the day before 9/11.

Why? First, while the government increases surveillance over every individual in he name of protection from terrorists, our borders remain wide open. Anyone wanting to do harm to the United States is able to simply walk into the country and be aided by an entire network providing shelter, money, weapons, and access to American programs for money, schools and jobs. They can illegally purchase counterfeit birth certificates and social security cards and obtain state drivers' licenses in any state. Only three states have the ability to authenticates birth certificates.

Programs like E-Verify, sold as a way to guarantee that only legal residents get jobs, actually aid those entering illegally. It makes the Social Security Number the most valuable commodity in the nation � a valuable prize. That makes it profitable for underground criminal networks to obtain and produce them. Terrorists networks have the means and the money to lead that effort. In addition, a study commissioned by DHS and performed by Westat reported that E-Verify is wrong more than it is right when dealing with a person in our country illegally is vetted out. In these situations E-Verify is wrong 54% of the time and right only 46% of the time.

And there is one more fact that renders the entire surveillance effort worthless in the fight against terrorism. Back to those E-Passports and the US demand for other nations to comply. The whole

Under REAL ID and the growing surveillance society, however, law enforcements mission is emerging to be one of "crime prevention" before it occurs. The only way such a policy could work is for government to be able to observe our every action, including monitoring phone calls, opening mail, monitor our financial transactions, monitor who we associate with and monitor our travel. The government has programs to achieve each and every one of these things. DHS and National Security Agency (NSA) have both engaged in domestic spying. The Defense Department had a program called "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) that was designed to combine and access all of the video cameras now in place in nearly every store, shopping mall and parking lot to monitor every move we make. Now on the back burner, TIA could be reactivated at any time. All that is missing is the final requirement that all Americans must carry in their pockets the document tying them into the system � the REAL ID drivers' license.

Once fully implemented, REAL ID means a "one-size fits all" policy, leading to the end of Constitutionally- protected First and Fourth Amendment rights. Proponents believe "safety" trumps "freedom" and any cost. With full implementation of REAL ID, government will finally have the laws, technologies and the ability governments throughout history have always sought to exercise total control over the people. Yet many Americans still refuse to be alarmed, seeking safety program depends on honest, reliable governments producing honest, reliable, secure documents on their own citizens. They don't.

Many Moslem countries in the Middle East consider the US to be their enemy.Pakistan's government, for one, while pretending to be our ally, is full of government workers who are either friends or members of Al- Qaeda. They have helped hide Al-Qaeda leaders since the inception of the war on terrorism. It is a known fact by US intelligence agents. Any effort made by the US to coordinate strategy with such governments fails because plans are immediately shared with the enemy by such government workers. The internal politics of these countries put the governments in an untenable position. If the leaders of these countries are perceived to be working with U.S. intelligence officials there is blowback against them for working with the "Infidels" of the United States. As a result, information from these nations, to this day, is at best questionable and unreliable.

To rely on such countries to provide honest documentation for citizens by way of passports or other identification is pure folly. It is easy for government employees to provide Al- Qaeda operatives all the "legitimate" documentation they need to travel freely inside the surveillance bubble that has been established to supposedly catch them.

Any honest observer or government leader dealing with the situation on a daily basis has to know the truth � that REAL ID and its fellow programs are not about protecting us in the war on terror. So what is the real purpose? What are we really doing?

The fact is Real ID is designed to enroll every citizen into a single global system of identification and financial control. Doubt that � then consider these words of Robert Mocny speaking for DHS when he said, "information sharing is appropriate around the world," and DHS plans to create a "Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations."

Meanwhile, Julian Ashborn speaking as the Chairman of the International Biometric Agency said, "What information do governments share? With whom is my data shared and why?" All of these questions need to be addressed by an agency with global powers"

These officials are telling openly telling us what they plan � global governance. Americans are just not listening. The truth is we are not safe. And such a system will never make us safe. But what we have done in the name of safety is to create an international surveillance system that destroys the unique American system of liberty and justice, "harmonizing" us into the same totalitarian system that controls so much of the rest of the world.

It can be stopped now- before it is fully implemented.

But once REAL ID is enforced in every state through compliant drivers' licenses, it will be too late. Every American who cherishes their Constitutionally- guaranteed rights have until May of this year to demand that their state governments stand strong and continue to oppose compliance with this international straight jacket. Our protests postponed it for several years. We must do it again.

Call now or understand that, once in place, there will be no way for this generation to pass freedom to the next. REAL ID is that great a threat.



Distributed by www.worldviewweekend.com

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PLAGUE OBA-HUSSEIN HAS DROPPED ON THE WORLD

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM JUST A COUPLE - OF A MULTITUDE - OF AVAILABLE, SIMILAR VIDEOS IN THE ARTICLE BELOW THIS, AND DETAILS HERE, OBA-HUSSEIN'S INABILITY TO SEE BEYOND HIS NARCISSISTIC CORRUPT NOSE TIP, HIS SUPPORT FOR HIS MARXIST-ISLAMIST IDEOLOGIES, HAS PLUNGED THE WORLD INTO A LIFE THREATENING AND ALTERING MODE AT THE HANDS OF HIS BUDDIES - FERVENT ISLAMISTS.


CBS international reporter Lara Logan is a well known public figure. And CBS and other media have accepted that she was brutally assaulted. However, Youtube and some Arab Websites are offering some further claimed shocking details not reported by the U.S. media and even some video about the extreme brutality of the attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan .




Reportedly, some videos did show a crowd of about 200 or more men surround and separate Lara Logan from her security, and the crowd shouted 'Jew, Jew!', and 'American bitch!'. Lara Logan is not Jewish or American, she’s a South African native.




Reportedly some of physical and sexual assault activity was caught on camera phones as well. One video purportedly involved some boy fondling the breasts of the reporter. However, another purported video that was described by a controversial YouTube video claims that a bearded man (too often a badge of an Islamist) ripped the top off the reporter and began slapping her face and breasts. He then pinned her to the ground, and by this time she stopped resisting, apparently accepting the fact that she was overpowered.




The bearded man then removed her pants and masturbated in front of her before raping her. He also reportedly clawed at her breasts with his hands. The YouTube video claims that at least six men raped her vaginally, and a number of men also raped her anally as well. She was reportedly masturbated on and urinated on by some men as well according to the YouTube video claims which was supposed to be pieced together from information and videos posted on Arab Websites and other sources.




It was claimed by various reports that the sexual assault and beatings might have lasted anywhere from 20-30 minutes on the short side, and as long as about 3 hours on the other hand. It was also claimed that her left breast might have been bitten or might even had the left nipple bitten off as well. One report claims that somewhere from 6 to about 50 men might have sexually assaulted or beat the attractive reporter.




One one hand, Lara Logan deserves her privacy. On the other hand being a major public figure, this international crime story is a very important one. It is also important to understand how anti-Americanism seemed to play a major role in the extreme level of brutality here. Reportedly, the reporter was left bloody, with semen and urine on her as the  crowd shouted anti-American slogans. This reporter deserves far better respect than these claims of the brutality suggest. This mob violence against an attractive reporter who risks her life by reporting from the world’s hot spots only illustrates the type of danger that reporters potentially face when they report the news.




The assault on Lara Logan illustrates just how much order has recently broken down in the MidEast region which is now far more dangerous for Westerners. Further, some dangerous heads of Al Qaeda have been released from prison in places like Libya as rioting crowds demanded that political prisoners are released. When reporter Lara Logan heals from her injuries, she will no doubt bravely go right back to reporting on all the perils of this region.




Update: Some of the videos such as a controversial YouTube video have been recently pulled down by YouTube about this brutal attack. And reportedly, a number of camera phone videos of the attack may exist as well. But, what is known is that a crowd of perhaps 200 men were witnesses, while some participated in this crime in addition to the Egyptian women and police that were witnesses to this crime.




Yet, CBS has had a peculiar double standard as to openly reporting this news story. At first CBS ignored this major news story, first allowing other news sources to report the story before finally admitting that international reporter Lara Logan 'suffered a brutal and prolonged sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers'. This has only led to a series of stories such as the YouTube video and postings on foreign Websites that claim to have viewed camera phone videos, photos or witness accounts of this story.




Only weeks ago when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded by a gunman at a constituent meeting at an Arizona Safeway store, CBS had no problem reporting in detail the injuries to the congresswoman and other victims of the attack. However, in the case of this attack and violence against one of their own reporters, CBS has been unusually silent, only allowing other accounts, or even possible speculation to fill the void.




Further, CBS hasn’t been helpful in answering the question about whether rape was involved. However, legally the term 'sexual assault' under U.S. law does usually stand for some form of sexual penetration.




We feel very sorry for reporter Lara Logan here. She’s an extraordinary journalist. However, CBS should be as open and honest about this story as Logan has been about her honest reports at hotspots around the globe. CBS could also be as honest and open about her injuries as they were in reporting the injuries to Rep. Giffords recently. The public wants to know how badly injured Lara Logan was. They identify with her because she’s such a popular public figure, seen in their living rooms several times a week on the CBS news.




CBS has a real opportunity to clear the air here, and honestly report the facts of this story, and not to whitewash the facts here. It appears that even the Obama Administration has pushed officials in Egypt to bring those that attacked Lara Logan to justice, strongly suggesting that real documentation of the crime, such as cell phone videos do exist which could identify those who beat or sexually assaulted the popular reporter. Meanwhile, Lara Logan continues to have our best wishes and prayers for her full and complete recovery.


WAKE UP AMERICA TO THE FACT OBAMA HAS CROSSED THE LINE OF TREASON TO THE USA - BY STUPIDITY OR ON PURPOSE - MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE.


HIS ACTIONS HAVE SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED OUR ALLIES , NEUTERED OUR MILITARY ABILITY TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES FROM OUR ENEMIES AND CONTINUALLY SUPPORTED OUR ENEMIES LIKE IRAN. AND RESTRUCTURED - BY FIAT NOT CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE - OUR NATION - TO SUIT HIMSELF NOT OUR WISHES.

SAUDI PUPPETMASTER GIVES OBA-HUSSEIN MARCHING ORDERS ON EGYPT

Saudis told Obama to back Mubarak
By Hugh Tomlinson n Riyadh (with editorial comment by Alan at the end)
February 10 2011

Saudi Arabia has threatened to prop up President Mubarak if the White House tries to force a swift change of regime in Egypt. In a testy personal telephone call on January 29, King Abdullah told President Obama not to humiliate Mr Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll Egypt if the US withdrew its aid programme, worth $1.5 billion annually.

America’s closest ally in the Gulf made clear that the Egyptian President must be allowed to stay on to oversee the transition towards peaceful democracy and then leave with dignity. “Mubarak and King Abdullah are not just allies, they are close friends, and the King is not about to see his friend cast aside and humiliated,” a senior source in the Saudi capital told The Times.

Two sources confirmed details of the King’s call, made four days after the people of Egypt took to the streets.

===================================

ALAN NOTE:

The zig-zag Obama Egypt policy flip-flops emanated from his ignorance of delicate world power balances, even worse mishandling than idiot Carter's in 1979, was enflamed by his overwhelming desire to put his Islamic buddies the Moslem Brotherhood in controlling power in Egypt, regardless of this crashing regional and Middle East stability plus our global economy.

The struggles among his advisors to cobble together a strategy based on common sense and his narcissistic desires caused confusion around the world till Saudi Arabia's King , one of those pulling the strings on the Oba-Hussein puppet we stupidly allowed to usurp the Oval Office read Obambi the riot act and ordered him to back off on his attacks on President Mubarak. And as we have seen, Oba-Hussein, much to his own astonishment that the Saudi leader of Sunni Islam from who he expected praise for his dastardly moves to bring Islam to take over secular Egypt, would object.

Blinded by his own Islamic ideology, naive Oba-zero failed to figure out that the Moslem Brotherhood is also a formidable enemy of his Saudi mentor and boss, the Saudi King, but as a obedient vassal he announced he would not demand Mubarak leave immediately - as he had been doing in an increasingly insistent way. Revelling in anticipation of the triumph of installing the Moslem Brotherhood as the major power.

We are so far past the point of rescue, even by a Republican Congress majority that I have a wry smile when I write about Oba-Zero's policies and activities.

America seems to have finally woken up but implementing but may not be able to find the needed defensive gambit to avoid being destroyed.

ANOTHER TRY TO CHECK OUT ELIGIBILITY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORN IN THE USA?

Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes
Eligibility challenge says precedents set for removing ineligible candidates

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 04, 2011

By Bob Unruh -  WorldNetDaily



A lawsuit that was filed over the absence of documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office and claims a precedent was set for removing ineligible candidates when an underage Eldridge Cleaver was taken off the ballot in 1968 is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation confirmed to WND tonight that his clients have requested in writing that he appeal the decision of the California Supreme Court.

Judges there this week got rid of the case with six words: "The petition for review is denied." That would have left standing a decision from the California Court of Appeals that if a qualified political party presents a candidate's name for inclusion on the ballot, the California secretary of state must include it.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

But Kreep confirmed that his clients, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson, will petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far has refused to even consider the arguments of a multitude of other challenges to Obama's eligibility, for review.

The lawsuit alleged both California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state's electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible. After the Electoral College vote was adopted in Congress the lawsuit was adjusted to address future elections.

Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the federal case, the plaintiffs are represented by Kreep and California attorney Orly Taitz. In the state case, only Kreep is involved.

In his petition for review, Kreep had explained that if the state Supreme Court failed to act, it would be tantamount to abandoning the clear requirements of the U.S. Constitution because a political party could nominate a candidate in violation of the Constitution, and voters might not either know or care about the result.

A commentary at Ballot-Access.org reported that the state's highest court, by leaving the appellate decision alone, revealed that the state apparently violated its own law in 1968 when then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan removed candidate Eldridge Cleaver of the Peace & Freedom Party from the presidential ballot.

He was only 33 years old at the time, while the Constitution requires a president to be 35.

"The decision, in effect, says the Secretary of State in 1968 should have listed Cleaver," said the commentary.

The decision that state Supreme Court refused to alter was one that concluded, "Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot. … With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties' candidates."

Plaintiffs had argued that the 1968 case set a precedent for the state to look at the qualifications of candidates and remove them from the ballot should they fail in the constitutional requirements to be a resident for 14 years, to be 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen."

It is Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" that is being questioned. WND has reported on the multiple legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility, and at least 10 state legislatures this year are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. A similar proposal had been introduced in the last Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.

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."

The Certification of Live Birth posted online by the Obama campaign is a document Hawaii officials have made available to those not born in the state.

However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.

Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

In the appellate decision, the court also suggested that a judicial review of a president's eligibility is a possibility.

That suggestion came in a ruling that affirmed a state district court's dismissal of a challenge to the procedures under which California's electors helped install Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

In addition to the case involving the removal of Cleaver from the ballot, the attorney who argued the case also has cited the court precedent that chief executives of government can be removed by the courts over eligibility issues.


North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible

The court precedent comes out of North Dakota, where the governor was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution's eligibility requirements.

The president's lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution's provision that presidential eligibility issues must be handled by Congress during the approval of the Electoral College vote, or a president must be removed by impeachment, which also rests with Congress.

In one case, the president's lawyers prominently argued, "The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.

"The examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress," the president's lawyers argued.

But it was in "State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie," after Thomas H. Moodie was elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, according to court filings, "it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor."

North Dakota's historical archives document the case.

The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

"As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives report. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935," the state reports.

The original Obama case sought to prevent Bowen from certifying California's electors for the Electoral College vote; it later was amended to correct the deficiencies it identified in future elections.

Read more: Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=259901#ixzz1DDFvMQEF

AL QAEDA ON BRINK OF USING NUCLEAR BOMB

By Heidi Blake and Christopher Hope, The Daily Telegraph February 1, 2011

Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents.


A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a "nuclear 9/11".


Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing "workable and efficient" biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West.


Thousands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe.


At a Nato meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaida was plotting a program of "dirty radioactive IEDs", makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan.


As well as causing a large explosion, a "dirty bomb" attack would contaminate the area for many years.


The briefings also state that al-Qaida documents found in Afghanistan in 2007 revealed that "greater advances" had been made in bioterrorism than was previously realized. An Indian national security adviser told American security personnel in June 2008 that terrorists had made a "manifest attempt to get fissile material" and "have the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb".


Alerts about the smuggling of nuclear material, sent to Washington from foreign U.S. embassies, document how criminal and terrorist gangs were trafficking large amounts of highly radioactive material across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.


The alerts explain how customs guards at remote border crossings used radiation alarms to identify and seize cargoes of uranium and plutonium.


Freight trains were found to be carrying weapons-grade nuclear material across the Kazakhstan-Russia border, highly enriched uranium was transported across Uganda by bus, and a "small time hustler" in Lisbon offered to sell radioactive plates stolen from Chernobyl.


In one incident in September 2009, two employees at the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia smuggled almost half a ton of uranium concentrate powder - yellowcake - out of the compound in plastic bags.


"Acute safety and security concerns" were even raised in 2008 about the uranium and plutonium laboratory of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear safety watchdog.


Tomihiro Taniguchi, the deputy director general of the IAEA, has privately warned America that the world faces the threat of a "nuclear 9/11" if stores of uranium and plutonium were not secured against terrorists.


But diplomats visiting the IAEA's Austrian headquarters in April 2008 said that there was "no way to provide perimeter security" to its own laboratory because it has windows that leave it vulnerable to break-ins.


Senior British defence officials have raised "deep concerns" that a rogue scientist in the Pakistani nuclear program "could gradually smuggle enough material out to make a weapon", according to a document detailing official talks in London in February 2009.


Agricultural stores of deadly biological pathogens in Pakistan are also vulnerable to "extremists" who could use supplies of anthrax, foot and mouth disease and avian flu to develop lethal biological weapons.


Anthrax and other biological agents including smallpox, and avian flu could be sprayed from a shop-bought aerosol can in a crowded area, leaked security briefings warn.


The security of the world's only two declared smallpox stores in Atlanta, America, and Novosibirsk, Russia, has repeatedly been called into doubt by "a growing chorus of voices" at meetings of the World Health Assembly documented in the leaked cables.


Courtesy Vancouver Sun

CHINESE PIANIST PLAYS ANTI-AMERICAN SONG AT WHITE HOUSE DINNER

OBAMA HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THIS INSULT TO AMERICA BY CHINESE AS HE PROBABLY DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED - OR APPROVES!

Pianist Lang Lang in many ways embodies the Sino-American comity that both President Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama emphasized during their summit this past week—which is no doubt why he was chosen to perform at the White House state dinner for Mr. Hu on Wednesday.

Born in China, Mr. Lang went to the U.S. as a teenager to study at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. He is fluent in both English and Mandarin. He is probably equally adored by classical music fans in the U.S. and in China, and splits his time between the two countries.


Zuma Press
So it comes as a bit of a surprise that he is now being praised by nationalist Internet users in China for a perceived anti-U.S. slight supposedly implied in the 28-year-old’s choice of music that night.

As part of the state dinner’s “quintessentially American” program, Mr. Lang was invited along with a number of U.S. jazz musicians in an “Evening of Jazz.” He and the legendary jazz pianist Herbie Hancock played a four hands version of a Maurice Ravel song, exchanging hugs afterward (see video of the performance here, and on Mr. Lang’s website here). Journalist James Fallows, who was at the dinner, describes the evening here).

Then, the plot thickened—at least, that’s how some read it. After bilingual comments to the assembled VIPs in which he said it was a “great honor” to be playing, he proceeded to perform a solo piece, which he introduced as a “Chinese song called ‘My Motherland.’”

The song is not just any old song. As Chinese netizens have pointed out, “My Motherland” is the theme song for a famous anti-U.S. movie about the Korean War from 1956, titled “Battle on Shangganling Mountain.”

The song lyrics do not mention the war and are very peaceful, speaking of memories of a hometown and how “young ladies are like flowers.”

But the film depicts a particularly brutal battle between Chinese and American troops during the Korean War, or what the Chinese call “The War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.” The movie also depicts Chinese troops enduring freezing weather with no food or water and American soldiers using flame throwers and laughing at burning Chinese soldiers. In retaliation, there’s a lot of killing of American troops later in the film.

Lang Lang himself appears to have been blissfully unaware of the political minefield he was stumbling into. In a blogpost on Sina.com headlined “Sharing a Day at the White House”, he describes the beauty of the song and its resonance with Chinese people. “I’m deeply honored and proud that I was able to play this song that praises the strength of China and the solidarity of the Chinese people in front of many foreign guests, especially leaders from all over the world.”

He posted a string of photos on his website of him posing with the celebrities at the dinner.

Yu Jianhong, director of the movie management department of Beijing Film Academy, says “Battle on Shangganling Mountain” is a “famous movie that deeply influenced a whole generation,” especially people born in the 1940s to 1960s (Mr. Lang was born in 1982). The song, Mr. Yu says, “transcends all historic events and times,” he says. Mr. Yu thinks that the song’s main theme is not about beating American imperialism, but rather, “about the love of the motherland and the longing of peace and a happy life.”

In any case, the irony of playing an ode from an anti-American Chinese movie at a White House event dedicated to Sino-U.S. cooperation and friendliness has set the Chinese web abuzz—and more than a few people are convinced it wasn’t an accident.

Both the Sina and Sohu news portals reposted an article that they attributed to the Beijing Evening News, with the headline: “Lang Lang Played ‘My Motherland’ at White House, Flaunting National Power.”

“Those American folks very much enjoyed it and were totally infatuated with the melody!!! The U.S. is truly stupid!!” wrote a user named You’re In My Memory on Sina’s micro-blogging site. This particular post was re-posted many times.

Some speculated whether Lang Lang knew of the significance and questioned whether it was his idea to play the song. Certainly nothing about Mr. Lang’s demeanor that night suggested that he intended to send a politically charged message, however subtle. Nor is he known to be an especially political figure. And one has to wonder whether he would really jeopardize his standing in the U.S., where he has a loyal fan base and where he lives much of the time.

Mr. Lang’s representatives could not be reached. A spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing said that they were not aware of what songs Lang Lang played at the state dinner.

Regardless, Mr. Lang seems to have found himself some new fans among the patriotic set in China.

“I think Americans should also be familiar with this song, whose meaning is so notorious that you don’t even need an explanation,” wrote user Winter Frost Rain on Sina’s micro-blog. “Lang Lang is too cool.”

ANOTHER DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT SABOTAGES OUR SECURITY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

Where did that come from?
U.S. failed to detect Chinese stealth fighter

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


China's J-20 stealth fighter

U.S. intelligence apparently failed to figure out how quickly the Chinese were developing their newest fifth generation J-20 stealth fighter, which U.S. government analysts now say was based on critical U.S. stealth technology transfers that happened while Bill Clinton was president, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Alan Note: Clinton also provided China (his replacement surrogate for his defunct Soviet  masters) with our nuclear secrets and Hughes MISSILE GUIDANCE technology. If you look at the global damage caused by Democrats Jimmy Carter  (best Soviet President America ever had) - decades of ongoing world terrorism, - Bill Clinton (avowed Socialist/Marxist) - upgrading Chinese technology ability to destroy us, - Hussein Obama  (fervent Marxist-Islamist, America hater) - you do not need to remember, just watch his destruciton of America on a daily basis.

Vice Adm. David Dorsett, director of naval intelligence, said that officials were aware of the development of the J-20, which is supposed to be comparable to the U.S. F-22 stealth fighter, but "the speed at which (the Chinese) are making progress, we underestimated."

The U.S. has halted production of the F-22 and is switching to the more advanced F-35, whose production and cost overruns make any timely operational status problematic.

The Chinese hope to deploy the J-20 by 2017.
Dorsett further indicated that intelligence failed to detect how quickly the Chinese are developing more than a dozen other weapons systems such as new and quieter submarines, long-range cruise missiles and other asymmetric warfare capabilities that differ significantly from the U.S. in terms of military power and resources.

Other military analysts say that the Chinese J-20 is an interim fighter until it can perfect a more robust jet engine that will be in a position to challenge the F-35. Experts say that the J-20 exhibits radar-evading stealth features, an advanced electronically scanned array radar and the ability to fly at supersonic speeds for long distances using less fuel.

With refueling, analysts say that the J-20 gives the Chinese force projection to be able to reach Guam where the U.S. has major military assets.

The reason for the accelerated pace at which the Chinese have developed the stealth J-20 is due to critical U.S. technology transfers through joint ventures with BP America in precursors and resins; Hexcel in pre-impregnated composite fiber technology; and Sikorsky in the manufacture, layup, shaping and know-how.


Read more: Where did that come from? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252165#ixzz1BW74pbti

ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION - IT IS A GOVERNING DOCTRINE

Sharia law, the Muslim Brotherhood, and U.S. homegrown jihad are where our fight in the US has to be focused.

Sharia law is responsible for the other two. The Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira are the basis of Sharia law, a deadly legal system for the rest of the world.

Sharia was illegal in America from the day our Constitution was ratified; We need
to keep reminding our elected officials (which includes all judges and justices) of that by producing state and federal legislation that reinforces that fact.

Whenever ANYbody says that the Islam is a theocracy based on the Qur'an and is therefore protected under the 1st Amendment, remind them that the Qur'an is the basis for Sharia law, which requires the death of America . . . which means the Qur'an does, too.


Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law

By JR Dieckmann
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27211  

The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion.

Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.

Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws.

Islam has the Quran that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings.

If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also.

We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam's Qur'an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values.

Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else.

How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Quran?

What legitimate religion would demand that its members either kill or convert people of other faiths? What legitimate religion is intent on imposing its own laws on the rest of the entire world?

If Islam were just about praying to Allah and worshiping Mohammed and nothing more, we would not be having a problem with Islamism and Islamic terrorists. Islam has a global mission to take over and run the world according to Islamic Shariah law.

How can we call that a religion?

What legitimate religion in this country comes with its own civil laws that take precedence over national, state, and local laws?

No, Islam is not a religion. It is a governing doctrine that not only dictates religious beliefs, but also social behavior that includes laws, penalties and punishments, not by God, but by people if the laws are not obeyed.

Islam is a form of government, not a religion. It does not belong here. We already have government under our Constitution (sort of).

As Muslims build their mega-Mosques in our nation - financed by Saudi Arabia - they laugh at the stupid Americans who are selling out their fellow citizens by allowing Islam to take over our country a little bit at a time. It is the same method used over decades by the Marxist Progressives who now have control of our government - take away our liberties one little piece at a time until full control and submission is achieved.
We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom. Islamists know they cannot destroy us militarily, but they also know that they can do it with political correctness and insisting that we respect their freedom of religion, even though they have no respect for ours.

We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom.

What religion recruits killers and terrorists in their place of worship, then sends them off to foreign training grounds to become proficient at mass murder? I know of only one.

They are taught to kill in the name of God, but this is not the law of God who commanded "thou shall not kill" - it is the law of Mohammed who commanded kill them all who will not convert.



The Quran blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law.

The Quran blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law. It certainly is not. Why do we tolerate this abomination in America where our laws maintain a separation between church and state?

To accept Islam in America is to accept Islamic law as well.

Are we out of our minds? Did anyone notice that we are at war with these people?

Terrorists feed on the same rulebook as other Muslims who have so far remained peaceful. Will they be making the same decision that Barack Obama made when he wrote in �Dreams Of My Father� - �When the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will side with the Muslims?� It is always nice to know
that our president is on our side when America goes to war. Too bad this one is not.


L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.

The same thing is happening in the southern Border States where Mexicans are taking over cities one by one. You need look no further than the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona to realize that the city government in L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.

The strong Democratic population has even elected a Mexican mayor to run the city, and half of the city council members have Mexican surnames, as do many in the California state legislature.

Although most of these legislators were born here in America, their loyalties seem to lie more with Mexico and Mexican citizens who are now invading our state along with other Border States.

These people of Mecha and La Raza believe this land is rightfully theirs and they intend to govern it for their people.

Any objections are met with charges of racism aimed at Americans who simply want to preserve the American language, culture, values, and way of life.

Los Angeles has changed a great deal since this invasion began and many American have moved out to find a new homeland.

What are we going to do when we see the same thing happening in the federal government? What are we going to do when Muslims demand that the United States respect and enforce Shariah law?

They are already doing it in England and other European countries. It is only a short time before we see it here too. Shariah is already creeping into the courts and local laws in some states.

Is that the kind of country we want? Or do we want the country that our founders created?

I have no problem with Muslims living in Islamic countries overseas where they can have the kind of society they desire, as long as they leave us alone and free to enjoy the kind of society that we desire. The two cannot be reconciled into one united society any more than capitalists can unite with communists.

It must be one or the other.

Some people think we should be bending over backwards to make nice with Muslims and make sure they feel welcome in our country because that is what America is all about, they say. Immigrants built America, they say.

To an extent, this is true if we are talking about the immigrants who migrated here to become Americans and help to build this great country over 200 years ago.

Today we have way too many foreigners coming to America not to become Americans, but instead to change America. They want to dominate instead of assimilate. They want us to accept their culture instead of them accepting our culture and becoming productive members of it.

Are you tired of being called �an immigrant� right here in your home country? I know I am.

America is a nation of immigrants, they say. Let me state this for the record. I am not an immigrant, I am a natural born American.

My parents were born here. My grandparents and great grandparents were born here. How many others in this country have the same family history? How many people reading this have known no other flag than the American flag?

We are not immigrants, we are Americans - and America is a nation of Americans - not a nation of immigrants.

How much longer will we be able to call ourselves �Americans� with foreign cultures and emphases on diversity encroaching on our country? People naturally gravitate toward their own kind, not because they are racists, but because they seek the company of others with whom they have things in common.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to relate to people here in Los Angeles who don't even speak our language. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment and hostility when we see our city being taking over by foreign invaders. Now we have to lock our doors both at home an in our cars.

When America was being built, most everyone was an immigrant - from Europe.

That was over 200 years ago. We still welcome immigrants who want to become a part of America and become American - but where do we draw the line between welcoming friends and embracing our enemies?

Obviously, to those running our government, there is no line thanks largely to Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a Congress full of Democrats when they passed The Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs, Kennedy said. Oh really?

If Muslims want to live and work in America and worship their prophet and God, that is not a problem.

But when they try to go beyond their own personal worship and demand that we change our society to accommodate them, then that is where we need to draw the line.

It is not we who should change, it is they. Just like people migrating from Mexico, they need to discard their old country ways, adapt to America, assimilate into our society, and become Americans.
Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims - and our own government - can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America.