The assignment was a way to make a few extra dollars during the holidays. Texas Drifter was appointed to settle the affairs of a recently deceased derelict.

Describing the deceased's efficiency apartment is an easy exercise in recalling on scene details. The residence was one room that consisted of half a kitchen, small dinning area, a smaller living area with a couch that folds out into a bed (opened); a small black and white television with a coat hangar for an antenna sitting on a cardboard box next to the door that entered the bathroom.

The rest room can best be described as a public sector facility at a downtown bus station that had not been cleaned for twenty years. The hide away bed was covered with clothes for sheets, and part of the carpet from the floor which was being used as a blanket.

There are no words to describe the apartment's smell; possibly because the clothes closet was being used as an in-house dumpster. The left sink was filled with dirty pans, plates, and silverware. The right sink was brimming over with empty bean and dog food cans.

Next to the moldy generic bean and quality dog food cans set a pancake hot plate which contained one can of half opened beans and one half opened can of dog food. It was later learned that the deceased had been using the hot plate to warm the beans and dog food before mixing them into a bowl known as ghetto chile.

A handwritten note was found behind the hot plate that said, "Remove paper labels before heating to prevent fire". Your instructor was almost afraid to open the refrigerator. Utter amazement cannot describe how this later surveillance instructor felt when he discovered that the interior of the icebox was cleaner than most hospital operating rooms.

What I found was a sanitized refrigerator full of prescription drugs arranged by names of those who had been prescribed the medications. It was later learned that the deceased had taken it upon himself to store and administer medications for the area's homeless population.

The freezer unit of the icebox contained what appeared to be the deceased's private papers, along with some type of diary. At this point, the instructor started looking for a place to sit down and review the new found documents.

The apartment's curtains had been replaced with the most recent Sunday newspaper comics. These paper curtains provided the only color and access for light to the otherwise dimly lit apartment. While dragging a chair over to the window; there was a knock at the door.

A surprised vagabond stated that he had come by to read the Sunday Comics and see if there was any ghetto chile left. I said that there was no chile left to which he shrugged his shoulders, and quipped while walking over to read the curtains, "There goes Thanksgiving Dinner".

Texas Drifter asked isn't there some place else where you can go for Thanksgiving Dinner?

The response, "Not and be with friends; besides that, being put on display for publicity is advertising not compassion.

I suggested that the tramp take the curtains with him since I was busy. The response was "If I do that, nobody else will be able to see the funnies."

He then asked if he could turn on the radio. I responded that I had not seen a radio. The homeless man then walked over to the television and turned it on with the following remarks, "when it don't have a picture, it's a radio."

Upon finishing the "funnies," the homeless man walked over and turned the "radio off." As he was leaving, he said "this place won't be the same without our ghetto chile." 

By this time, the instructor had reviewed all of the personal papers except the diary. The first twenty or so pages of the diary detailed how the deceased had been a working parent with a spouse who traded partying for the sanctity of marriage.

The deceased problems started when the adulterous spouse well known in Democrat Party, had retained a divorce attorney also a Democrat, to conduct a high profile bogus child abuse campaign against the deceased. The net result of this government assisted smear campaign was that the deceased losing his reputation, children, and job.  

As the instructor was about to get lost in the diary, there was another knock at the door. This time the instructor was confronted by three homeless people asking if they might reclaim property they had loaned the deceased. Knowing that I had to get rid of the apartment's contents anyway; I said sure come on in and take what's yours.

Amazingly, no one started gathering up things until after they had finished reading the "funnies." I used this quiet time to continue reading the diary.

It seemed that the Democrat Party judge had set the deceased's child support payments at a rate based on deceased's salary before he lost his job because of the government's fraudulent child abuse investigation. The judge said that his Democrat Party court would not tolerate lazy child abusers.

The deceased was unable to find comparable work because employers are not inclined to hire suspected child abusers. This resulted in the deceased not being able to obtain employment and make the full court ordered payments.

A part time job and partial payments did not satisfy the Democrat Party judge who ordered the deceased to forfeit: their driver's license, vocational license, and all custody and visitation rights with his children. As this was not enough, the liberal lesbian judge also ordered the deceased to spend six months in county jail.

By now more homeless people were showing up to claim property previously "loaned" to the deceased. The "radio" along with all the small items were long gone by now. I found myself giving permission for the intruders to take the furniture and anything else they could carry off. My primary interest was in finishing the last few pages of the diary.

It turned out that the one week early court ordered release from jail for the deceased required medication based maintenance therapy from one of the judge's largest re-election financial contributors.

This led to the deceased being required to take more types of prescription drugs than street dealers ever dream of selling. The court ordered prescription drug abuse achieved the desired results, and eventually led to the deceased being classified as "disabled" by other bureaucrats.

The final words in deceased diary still haunt me: "They can destroy my career; they can take away my family; and they can even make me a drug addict; but Democrats can not take away my desire to help the less fortunate."

My reflections were interrupted by somebody asking about the rest of the drugs. I had completely forgotten about the icebox full of prescription drugs. As it turned out, none of the "dregs of society" had taken anybody's drugs but their own. The person asking me about the drugs wanted to know how long the place would be open so the rest of the people could come by and pick up their medications.

I informed the person asking the question that the electricity would be left on for the rest of the weekend. My response was followed by another question about taking up, the rest of the carpet for blankets since winter was only a few weeks away. Again my response was take what you need.

Within another couple of hours, the efficiency apartment had been stripped bare except for the icebox and the curtains.

An older homeless woman approached and said "it would be nice if you told everybody to leave the curtains as kind of a memorial." After getting everyone's attention, I said that I had been given a suggestion that the curtains should be left as a memorial to a good person who made a difference.

One of the dirtiest of the homeless people said "thanks." To which I responded what for? The answer was simple, "for respecting what dignity we have left."

This Texas drifter's plans became closing out the deceased's utility accounts on Friday. Maybe that old man was right - exploiting other people's misery for publicity is not charity?

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

Marshall's Law Townhall - MarshallsLaw.BlogTownhall

Part 4: Turning America into another country, losing cultural values, losing national identity

Former President George Bush called it a "War on Terror." In reality, we fight defensively against Islam's war on Western thought, Western culture, Western religion and Western civilization.

Again, Islam detests Western thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Nonetheless, 'soft' jihad continues in America with eight million Muslim immigrants in 20 years and another 10 million coming within the next two decades. What percentage of them will make Fort Hood look like a kindergarten picnic? We impregnate ourselves with Islam at great risk.

"Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession." -George Washington

"FBI: 10% of U.S. Mosques Preach Jihad," Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:09 PM, by: Ronald Kessler, newsmax.com, 11/10/09, 1,200 mosques in America.
"Moderate to Extreme,"

In Newsweek, November 23, 2009, Jacob Weisberg, said, "American casualties in Afghanistan have more than doubled in the past year. In the past several months, officials have interrupted a rash of domestic terror plots. These include four men accused of planning to attack synagogues and shoot down aircraft in Newburgh, NY; Colorado Muslim immigrant Zazi making bombs; attempt by Jordanian Muslim immigrant to blow up 60 story Dallas skyscraper; immigrant in Boston plot to attack a shopping mall, [11 men in Detroit three weeks ago in gunfight with police as they screamed for Sharia Law and a separate Muslim state in Michigan]." Last week, U.S. Major Hasan blasted 42 unarmed Americans at Fort Hood.

In a London, England, Muslim "Religion of Peace" demonstration, followers sported signs: "Slay those who insult Islam"; "Behead those who insult Islam"; "Europe is a cancer, Islam is the answer"; "Islam will dominate the world"; "Europe will pay, your 9/11 is on its way."

The formation of the Muslim religion

Born in the 6th century by an illiterate thug named Muhammad, who beheaded his enemies, raped young girls and cut off hands of opponents- Islam adheres to mass illiteracy of its followers, violence, female subjugation, stoning of women, female genital mutilation, "honor" killings and a distinct vengeance on anyone who does not follow its teachings.

While we in the U.S. tend to "blame" the Muslims for their "irrationality"- were you to have a serious chat with a sensible Muslim, you would hear of U.S. atrocities that we tend to forget and put aside. Both sides tend to react against each other.

Every major terrorist act from the 1972 Munich Olympic killings, to Lockerbie, to airport shootings, to unrest and tension in Western societies leads to Muslim immigrants infiltrating host countries. U.S. Army Major Hasan offers yet another lesson in this progression that will not be heard or acted upon, i.e., political correctness.

The Muslim idea is simple; the violent overthrow of the infidels.

Muslims wish to live in free societies, but their "prime directive" advocates change toward Sharia Law, which is theocratic law. In other words, Islam rules over reason.

Holland, France, England and Belgium- now in the clutches of millions of Islamic immigrants unwilling to assimilate- stand in the crosshairs of cultural suicide.

A recent Dutch study reported, "Western European and Muslim ways of life are irreconcilable."

Forty-six percent of Turkish Muslims and 37 percent of Moroccan Muslims, agree strongly that "Western European culture has nothing to contribute to Islam."

"Sadly, mainstream Muslims teach, accept and promote violence," said Tawfik Hamid, a former Muslim terrorist, in his Wall Street Journal piece, "The trouble with Islam ," April 3, 2007. "Women are stoned to death and clitorectomies promoted."

With eight million Muslims in America, their silence illustrates a deafening support for their barbaric atrocities. What happens when America injects another 10 million, and then on to 20 million additional Muslims?

Do we not see the cultural suicide of France, Holland, Britain and Belgium as a strong hint of our future?

Huge Muslim population growth in the U.S. -- What are we thinking?

Look at Detroit, Michigan and the suburb of Dearborn. Muslims transformed that city into their own beachhead in America. They've displaced most American-citizens where they have enclaved. The same slums that descended on Holland grow in Detroit. Given enough time, more and more 'dedicated' Muslim groups- like the three Duka brothers at Fort Dix two years ago- will plan more new killing scenarios. It's the nature of Islam.

Are you aware that these three illegal aliens came to the U.S. through Brownsville, TX-illegally crossing the U.S. Mexican border more than twenty years ago? Are you aware that the cops in New Jersey chose to look the other way while these aliens ran loose?

The Koran states:

SURAH (Chapter) 9:5

Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take them and kill them wherever you find them.

SURAH 4:89

So, when you meet (in fight-jihad in Allah's Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly.

For those Americans who don't understand what we face as a nation and as a culture, I bring you to the three stages of jihad of Islam:

All countries with Muslim immigrants suffer one of the following stages of jihad.

Weakened Stage

This stage applies to Muslims that must submit to the law of the land they live in. They are a weak, small minority living in a non-Islamic society.

Preparation Stage

In this stage Muslims have become an influential minority. They will now make preparations to accumulate finances, recruit the young to commit to the next stage of jihad that will confront the enemy.

Let not the Unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides whom you may not know, but whom Allah knows.

SURAH 8:59

Jihad Stage

Influence and power marks this state of the Muslim minority. It is now your duty to overturn the governments of the non-Muslim countries into establishing Islamic authority.

Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).

As America immigrates millions of Muslims, this country turns itself into another country: Islamic whether 10 years from now or 100 years from now. Women will be relegated to secondary slave status. Sharia Law will trump democratic law. Barbaric customs such as stoning of women, arranged marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation and men enjoying four wives will become the norm as they use the U.S. Constitution to implement their culture upon America.

As we multiculturalize America, as a U.S. Army soldier, which would you like to be sharing a foxhole with: a gay person or a Muslim? Which language would you like them to speak? Arabic or English? Would you rather they follow Sharia Law or the U.S. Constitution? U.S. Major Nadal Hasan followed Sharia Law. If they were a father who had committed an honor killing of their daughter, would you support that action? If they had beheaded their wife for filing for a divorce, would you support that act? It happened with Muzzammil Hassan in New York, February 9, 2009 and in several other American cities in 2009. Would you respect their right to force their daughters into female genital mutilation operations?

Are we willing to negate our culture, our laws and our way of life to allow them theirs? In 2009, we speed toward an Islamic future here in the former United States of America. Perhaps in 50 years, they will change our country to the United States of Islam.

For current examples: Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Spain and Germany.

Part 5: What Sharia Law means for women in America.

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

 Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents - from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border.  In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece.  He presents "The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it" to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges.  He works to bring about sensible world population balance at frostywooldridge.com  He is the author of:  America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans.

But who ever heard a book causing the death of millions? Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was the driving force behind eliminating DDT throughout the world. Her fraudulent claims of bird egg thinning, and widespread declines in bird populations have all been thoroughly debunked by numerous studies.

Many need to read Junkscience.com's 100 things you should know about DDT to fully understand DDT history. The Malaria Clock totals up malaria deaths of more than 90 million to date, with almost 15 billion cases where malaria has caused immense suffering and poverty.

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was first produced by Dr. Paul Mueller in 1939. He found that DDT quickly killed flies, walking sticks, potato beetles, aphids, and especially mosquitoes. After several unprecedented successes, including in 1943 when the U.S. Army used DDT on its soldiers to kill body, head, and crab lice, for his work with DDT Muller won the Nobel Prize in 1948.

Gas chromatography was universally used in pesticide analysis in the 1960s. Often, it failed to differentiate between DDT and other chemicals. DDT has been mistaken for other organochlorides routinely in the methods used about the same time Silent Spring came out.

Others have mistakenly claimed that some mosquitoes have become resistant to DDT, but forget about its repellency. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico - where 69% where all reported cases of malaria now occur - shows that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria.

Carson should have stuck around long enough to see how the mosquito population has drastically increased over the last 30 years.

Today, the evolving door of science is determining that some man-made chemicals are more toxic than thought. Thalidomide, used by some pregnant women to prevent morning sickness, was found to cause severe birth defects. Aspartame, an existing artificial sweetener, has been found to produce symptoms of MS in healthy individuals.

However, Alar (daminozide) used extensively in the 60-80's, was sprayed on fruit (mainly apples) to regulate their growth and enhance their color. The EPA decided to ban Alar altogether because of carcinogenicity concerns. It turns out lab tests have shown over 5000 gallons per day of apple juice must be consumed before any tumors could develop, and drinking less that 100 gallons of water in one day could cause death.

Unfortunately, DDT has been put in the same category as the first two truly toxic materials. In frequently asked questions on DDT use for disease vector control, the World Health Organization (WHO) provides some very salient points for use of DDT. Senator Tom Coburn's plea to the European Union on DDT is so well described in Environmentalism, Human Health, Africa. It also depicts how nicotine breathed in from common cigarettes is 100 times more toxic than DDT.

John Berlau (Research Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute) says, "Not a single study linking DDT exposure to human toxicity has ever been reported."

In Paul Driessen's column in Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, he writes about how DDT expert Dr. Gordon Edwards used to eat a spoonful of DDT whenever he gave a lecture about it.

Driessen also confirms how the EPA head William Ruckelshaus had never attended a single day's session in seven months of EPA hearings on the use of DDT, and who admittedly had not even read the transcript, banned it for virtually all uses.

After seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated "DDT is not carcinogenic to man...The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT."

What's worse is there is a contingent of people who are OK with the loss of life in developing countries without DDT because of fears of world overpopulation. Shocking as it sounds many believe third-world populations are third class citizens anyway. They believe fewer numbers of them will only aid the perceived problem of world overpopulation. They are the ones who put differing values on life.

One of the reasons liberals are so hostile to public expressions of Christianity is because it threatens the monopoly that the religion of liberalism enjoys in the public square. The late Ted Kennedy was more than a leading senator, to liberal supporters. He was a secular saint. His appeal was essentially religious. He made it fairly explicit in his famous concession speech to the Democratic National Convention that re-nominated President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy reduced thousands of liberal delegates to tears with this emotional peroration:

May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.

And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

"I am a part of all that I have met
[Tho] much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are --
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Not for Ted Kennedy the cool rationalism of his party's founder, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had famously said "if I had to go to Heaven in a political party, I would not go at all." For Ted Kennedy and for those weeping delegates, the Democratic Party holds that place that used to be reserved for church and church alone. It's no wonder that those teary believers-more than 90 percent of whom tell researchers they never go to church-end their search for the meaning of life in political activism.

Analyze Kennedy's Epistle to the Gentiles and you will see that the concern, the work, the cause, the hope, the dream that is the subject of his panegyric is government. Government giveth and Government taketh away. The only Government worthy of that capital G is one that provides health, education, and welfare. All Americans are invited into the Democratic Church. Only the heretical conservatives are excluded.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was at the Kennedy School at Harvard last week. Liberals go to Harvard the way Muslims go to Mecca. Pelosi was basking in liberal approval for having been the first Speaker to deliver on the promise of universal health care. She established her bona fides early in her sermon. "For thirty years I've been an advocate of single payer," she said. Single payer is liberal speak for socialized medicine, run entirely by the state, paid for by the state. But we have to make some tactical compromises, she said. Well, there may have to be a few little detours on the road to the Heavenly Liberal City.

"We all have our theology in politics," she said to murmurs of approval from her audience. When Gov. George W. Bush said in a Republican debate in 2000 that Jesus Christ was his favorite political philosopher, liberals were aghast. But when Nancy Pelosi speaks of "theology," we must assume she uses the word the way Webster defines it: "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world."

For Pelosi, God commands universal health care without a restriction on funding abortion. And God apparently also commands the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Pelosi invoked the patron saint of San Francisco. She recited the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. It was probably the first time in history that that gentle saint was dragged in to bless the slaughter of innocents and the abolition of matrimony.

Predictably, there were no ACLU protests. And no atheizers ran to MSNBC to deplore her breaching the Wall of Separation between Church and State.

Pelosi was perfectly free not only to preach her religious ideas, but to impose jail time and fines on those who dissent. In the Gospel According to Nancy, the liberal Preacher of the House promises to bring the liberal Heaven to Earth. Is it any wonder growing numbers of Americans think it's a living hell?

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

Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, and the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network. Mr. Blackwell is also the Chairman for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, and a member of the National Rifle Association's Public Affairs Committee. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor and columnist for the conservative news and opinion site Townhall.com, and a public affairs commentator for the Salem Radio Network. 

We have heard a lot over the past year or so about how President John F. Kennedy wouldn't be able to garner his political party's nomination for the presidency in today's Democrat Party. An examination of his political platform and the principles he embraced would today place him on the right side of the aisle. So, why is it that in just under fifty years the political ideology of the most revered Democrat to hold office in modern times is shunned by the party he served? It's because his party - the Democrat Party - isn't the party of Democrats any longer.

Sure, there are still some issues that Democrats view in the same light they did back in the 1960s. Democrats are more prone to being anti-war than their Conservative counterparts. They still believe in a larger role for government in the private sector. And they still believe that government has a significant role to play where poverty and the disenfranchised are concerned.

Many, like Kennedy - and Roosevelt before him - also continue to believe in a strong national defense, although they still possess a great deal of concern about the "military industrial complex."

But today's Democrat Party agenda, while holding to these core issues, has evolved into a completely different political party, complete with a foreign - as in not of the Democrat Party of old - agenda. In fact, many a Democrat has come forward to espouse, "It isn't your Dad's Democrat Party anymore."

Today's Democrat Party is led by a zealous, almost fanatical faction of the party; the Progressives. This faction is more pronounced in the House of Representatives and is led by Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and her Progressive Caucus. While the Progressive ideology is less apparent in the US Senate, it does drive the Democrat majority's agenda on the major issues, especially where spending and entitlement are concerned. In the Executive Branch, the Obama Administration is born of the Progressive movement. In the Judiciary Branch, which is supposed to be apolitical, newly seated Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor joins former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsberg as the most notable Progressives.

Democrats, born of Anti-Federalist factions, established their political party on an agenda including states' rights, strict adherence to the Constitution and in opposition to a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. These precepts grew to include opposition to corruption, high taxes and tariffs. And while the Democrat Party developed to include the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights and regulation of business, it advanced this support with an eye toward balance and respect for the need for that balance.

The Progressive Movement, through three attempts at mainstreaming its philosophy, has arrived, through the social activist movement, to champion a political agenda that includes: electoral reform (including the abolition of the Electoral College), environmentalism and pollution control to an extreme degree and to the point of national detriment, same-sex marriage and the mainstreaming of alternative-lifestyles, hate-crime legislation, universal healthcare, abolition of the death penalty, affordable housing regardless of economic viability, pro-union policies, and the misguided notion that radical Islamic aggression should be treated as a law enforcement issue instead of an act of war, to name but a very few.

Further, one of the most powerful influences in the Progressive Movement - aside from the neo-Marxists of the Frankfort School and the ideological manifestation of political correctness - is the radical ideology of Saul Alinsky, whose Rules of Radicals mandated:

1) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2) Never go outside the experience of your people.

3) Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.

4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules

5) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8) Keep the pressure on.

9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

As for ethics and morality, Alinsky said:

"The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment..."

"The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory."

"You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."

"Goals must be phrased in general terms like 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,' 'Of the Common Welfare,' 'Pursuit of Happiness' or 'Bread and Peace.'"

The Progressive element within the Democrat Party, as it operates today, employs the "ends justifies the means" strategy of achieving their goals in a most egregious manner, and whether the goals are in the best interest of the "Common Good" or simply put forth in an effort to strengthen the Progressive ideology.

Examining the standard operating procedure "slash-and-burn" tactics of Nancy Pelosi, we see that she and the members of the Progressive Caucus think nothing of:

▪ Usurping the long-established House committee legislative process by crafting legislation behind closed doors and unto themselves.

▪ Colluding with organizations emanating from the Progressive movement like the Apollo Alliance, a special interest group that counted among its higher-ups the now former Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, and who helped to craft the disaster of a "stimulus bill" - which stimulated the special interests of the Progressive Left, the ire of the mainstream American people and little else.

▪ Advancing falsehoods in an effort to advance their ideological agenda - a perfect example of this is presented in Ms. Pelosi's attack on the CIA and intelligence community in which she changed her story several times about being briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques used on radical Islamist terrorists.

Further, Ms. Pelosi and her Progressive Caucus illustrated their contempt for the election process, the Constitution and the rule of law by swearing in Bill Owens prior to the certification of the congressional special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. They did this simply to pad the vote for their healthcare proposal, HR3692.

The Progressive movement has grown to include globalists like George Soros and Peter Lewis, and organizations like MoveOn.org, Media Matters and Center for American Progress. It also counts among its political pawns organizations like CodePink, Emily's List, ACORN and America Coming Together.

The Progressive agenda, in its current form, in advancing three core issues in healthcare reform, climate change legislation and immigration reform, would not only "fundamentally change the United States of America," as Pres. Obama has told us he intends to do, but crash the dollar and set the stage for a global currency, which will lead to global regulation, authority and last, but not least, a global government.

To compare and contrast, Democrats, as core tenets, embrace a "strict adherence to the Constitution and opposition to a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests." Progressives are usurping the Constitution and using the "national bank and moneyed interests" to move the country to a global new world order.

The surprising fact in all of this is that the Progressive Caucus in the US House of Representatives consists of 79 members, most from California, New York, Illinois or Massachusetts. Put into context, the Progressives in the US House - where all financial legislation is supposed to originate - account for roughly one-third of the 258 Democrat members and roughly one-fifth of the total of members. Yet, they control the committee chairmanships and manhandle the agenda.

Some glaring questions beg to be asked:

▪ If the actions and intentions of the Progressives in elected office is to marginalize the Constitution and move our nation toward the surrender of our sovereignty, why won't the rank-and-file Democrats remove them from leadership, if only to preserve their legislative authority and power?

▪ If Progressives - as they have demonstrated through word and deed - are so hell-bent on marginalizing our country, the Constitution and our currency in both stature and in the ability to affect global policy, why won't rank-and-file Democrats in Congress collude with the GOP in an effort to preserve the Union and her currency?

▪ If Progressives are so few in number, why do rank-and-file Democrats in Congress allow them to be seated in leadership positions, especially in light of the destruction Progressives are inflicting upon the Democrat brand with centrists and independent voters?

And last but not least, what - besides divisiveness, elitism, censorship, political correctness and the silence of honest debate - has the Progressive movement ever contributed to the people of the world?

There are quite a few things wrong with our country today. We are fighting an internal cancer in constitutional illiteracy while, at the same time, battling aggressive radical Islam and the encroaching neo-Marxism of the Progressive movement. While constitutional literacy will take at least a generation to restore and the conflict with radical Islam promises to be one that will outlast several generations, the potency of the neo-Marxist Progressive movement can be neutered almost immediately, but it must be neutered from within the Democrat Party.

This truth begs one last question: Do Democrats have the will to take back their party?

Let's hope, for the sake of our country, that they do.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is a member of the International Analyst Network. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Captain's America Radio Show airing on AM1220 WSRQ and on the Internet catering to the US Armed Forces around the world and on The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally on the USA Radio Network. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.

The implication is that Obama favored the funding ban in order to get the bill out of the House and now opposes it. The bishops have been "betrayed," Donohue claims. 

But who played into whose hands?

One of the sharpest critics of the political left on the scene today, Donohue may be failing to confront the left-wing and even socialist tendency in his own church. The shocking truth is that the bishops, their lobbyists, and the Vatican itself worked hand-in-glove with Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a pro-abortion Catholic. In fact, according to one sensational report, Catholic lobbyists were "summoned" into Pelosi's office to make a deal.

Information about Catholic lobbying on Capitol Hill during House deliberations over health care legislation has been leaking out in bits and pieces. Now, however, Julia Duin of the Washington Times has put it all together. Rather than feeling betrayed by Obama, her extraordinary article describes "jubilation" by the bishops and their lobbyists over the health care legislation as they meet this week in Baltimore, Maryland, for a conference.

"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was taking a lot of the credit for getting more than 60 Democratic votes on Nov. 7 for a last-minute amendment to President Obama's health care bill that says no federally subsidized insurance plan can cover abortion," she reported.

Duin said she approached the issue with keen interest. "I was curious about what kind of behind-the-scenes work the USCCB [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] staff did," she said. "We all knew that various bishops were calling House members; retired Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick's call to Mrs. Pelosi's office from Rome is well known, as was Chicago Cardinal Francis George's call to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio to make sure Republicans didn't scuttle the amendment."

"Although Cardinal McCarrick walked away when I approached him about his call from the Vatican, some of the others involved in the lobbying were more forthcoming," she said. "There were four USCCB staff members shuttling between various offices on Capitol Hill that weekend, especially on Nov. 6, the day before the Stupak amendment and the final bill passed. And they didn't come uninvited. 'We were summoned to the Hill by the speaker,' one of the quartet told me. 'She needed the votes.'" Duin names the names of those staffers. I have emailed the USCCB asking how many of them are registered as lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

Did they not understand that the anti-abortion amendment put forward by Rep. Bart Stupak was a temporary measure to get the bill passed and let the Senate work its will on the legislation? This is an obvious story for the Catholic press, but one that should interest the secular media as well. In other words, were the bishops used? Or did they let themselves be used? 

The end result, as Donohue now fears, will likely be socialized medicine without any new restrictions on abortion. It will be a major victory for Obama and his socialist backers.

If socialized medicine comes to America, Obama will have the Catholic bishops to thank. They kept the House bill alive, working at the direction of Speaker Pelosi, when it appeared that the whole package was going to go down to defeat.  

Writing on the Newsrealblog associated with Frontpagemag.com, Calvin Freiburger points out that the official position of the bishops on so-called universal health care is shared by the forces on the political left. But it's difficult to get these basic facts reported in the major media. Too often it has simply been reported that the bishops were opposed to the Obama plan. In fact, their opposition was largely limited to the abortion matter.

Freiburger notes that Catholic Priest Jonathan Morris, a Fox News analyst, was on Sean Hannity's program and tried to claim that the bishops favor some vague "universal right to have access to basic health care" but not "socialized medicine." Freiburger quotes from an official USCCB document in which they explicitly call for the federal government to have a role in guaranteeing that "right." There is no question that the bishops favor a strong federal role. Indeed, they want the legislation to cover illegal aliens. National health care could also be a device to subsume many of the costs currently being born by Catholic Hospitals.

"The modern Left has successfully hijacked many religious institutions, and conservatives do themselves no favors by denying the problem," notes Freiburger.

The fact is that many conservative Catholics do understand the problem and they have contacted me, encouraging more coverage of what the bishops have been doing. One told me, "The USCCB has virtually handed over to the government every activity that used to be understood as the proper realm of private, voluntary charity." He points out that Catholic Charities gets billions of government dollars. Indeed, in 2008, according to the organization's own figures, federal government revenue accounted for 67 percent of its $3.9 billion total income. 

This Catholic, who has worked in Washington, D.C. for many years, is so cynical that he even doubts that many of the bishops mean it when they say they're opposed to abortion being covered under the health care bill. He said, "Look for any 'opposition' to the billions that the federal government spends on 'family planning.'" The implication is that their anti-abortion position is more rhetorical than real. 

Raymond Arroyo, the host of Catholic television network EWTN's "The World Over" program, has stated that half or more of the bishops voted for Obama, despite his radical pro-abortion record.

Interestingly, Arroyo is on the board of directors of Donohue's organization. Perhaps they should begin a discussion of what the bishops knew and when they knew it when it comes to the national health care scheme being pushed through Congress. It's getting pretty late, however, for answers.

            Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

I won't supply a long list here but instead will talk about the latest one. Let's take it step by step to see what a mess is being created.

Background: Israel announced in 1993, at the time of the Oslo agreement with the PLO, that it did not view construction on existing settlements as a violation. The Palestinians, during the ensuing 16 years, never made this a big issue. The U.S. government, while it can say it technically opposed this, was pretty quiet about it, never did anything.

Then President Barack Obama came to office and made the construction issue the centerpiece of his Middle East policy, sometimes it has appeared to be the keystone of his whole foreign policy. It may seem like an exaggeration but often it seems as if the administration believes that if Israel stopped building 3000 apartments all the region's problems would go away.

So far, the Administration has wasted almost ten months in this pursuit. First, it shouted at Israel as if it were some servant to do it fast or else. Then when Israel didn't, the Administration realized that perhaps Israel should get something in exchange for the concession. So it went to Arab states and asked-presuming, wrongly, that they are desperate for a peace agreement-for some compromise but got nothing.

Now it had destroyed its own policy since the Palestinian Authority (PA) refused to come to negotiations until there was a complete freeze. How could it be less hardline than the president?

But there was a solution, sort of. Israel agreed to stop all construction once the apartments currently being built are finished. And naturally, Israel said, this didn't apply to east Jerusalem.

The United States accepted the deal, with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton exulting about what a huge concession Israel was making. Aside from everything else, the U.S. government knew how big a risk Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was taking with his coalition.

Ok. Sorry to give you all this background but it is necessary to understand how the Administration loves to jump in the quicksand.

So what happened? The PA couldn't stand to see Israel being praised and doesn't want to negotiate peace any way. So it threw a temper tantrum: riots in Jerusalem, threats by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to resign, refusal to go to negotiations with Israel, and a clamor for a unilateral declaration of independence.

The hubbub about a unilateral declaration of independence was almost universally described in the media as arising from Palestinian frustration. Not at all. It is based on their own position: Why make a compromise peace with Israel when you can just claim everything you want, ensuring the door be kept open for a future struggle to wipe Israel off the map entirely?

What did the Administration do? It backed down on everything except the independence bid! Having made a deal with Israel, having gotten Netanyahu to take an enormous risk, it then pulled the rug out from under him. Now it said: Well, maybe it wasn't such a great deal after all.

Those who always advocate Israeli concessions as the solution should take note. Once again, we've seen that a concession doesn't lead to a concession by the other side or progress. It just produces a demand for more concessions without giving any real credit to the last one.

This kind of thing is expected from the PA but one can only say: Et tu Obama? (William Shakespeare's line for Julius Caesar after his supposed friend, Brutus, stabbed him in the back.) Mind you, the Administration doesn't mean any harm-after all, it may end up the biggest loser-it just has no idea of what it's doing.

The latest act in the drama is that after an announcement that Israel would some day build apartments in the Gilo section of Jerusalem-which is quite within the U.S.-Israel deal and, by the way, is not in east Jerusalem-the Administration complained bitterly, showing not only that it wouldn't respect agreements others made with predecessors but it wouldn't even respect the agreements it made itself.

Obama said that the Gilo construction complicates administration efforts to relaunch peace talks, makes it harder to achieve peace and embitters the Palestinians.

Funny, he never said this about: PA incitement to terrorism; failure to punish terrorists; negotiations with Hamas despite its hardline positions, genocidal goals, antisemitic views, and terrorist acts; refusal to return to talks with Israel despite Obama's express request to do so; breaking its promise on not to be a sponsor of using the Goldstone report to punish Israel; and other such actions. Each of these individually is more dangerous than the Gilo construction.

Now here's another point you probably won't see anywhere except here:

Having sabotaged negotiations by escalating the construction-on-settlements issue, the Administration has now escalated even higher: no construction in Jerusalem is the minimum demand. Of course, Arab states and the PA will echo this, refusing all talks unless that happens. And since Israel won't stop building in Jerusalem and the Arab side won't-unlike the Administration-back down-Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire four-year term in office. In fact, he's probably ensured no comprehensive negotiations will take place, much less succeed.

Talk about painting yourself into a corner, and the Administration keeps making that corner smaller!

Here's another problem: By blaming Israel repeatedly for every failure, the Administration is not only signalling the PA and Arab states that they can do anything and pay no cost, it is also unintentionally encouraging them to sabotage any progress. Why? Because the worse and slower things go the more they can blame Israel and expect the United States and Europe to do so also. The Administration is making its own failure far more likely.

One final point: The same loss of U.S. credibility and reliability that affects Israel also hits the relatively moderate Arab states in the Administration's dealings with them. The Obama Administration is doing the same thing to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and other Arab regimes. See here for details on that factor.

No doubt we will soon be hearing that if Israel stopped building apartments in Gilo there would be Arab-Israeli peace, no terrorism, Iran would give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and Obama would get the Nobel Peace Prize. Oops, that last event has already happened. How about giving him the Nobel Peace-Destroying Prize.

The Daled Amos blog has a terrific evaluation of how much the Obama Administration has accomplished (not) on Arab-Israeli issues. The story begins with a hysterically funny State Department press briefing where a spokesguy claims Obama has done more in nine months than the previous president did in eight years.

Then, the claim quickly--and embarrassingly--collapses when a reporter who knows something on the subject asks a few questions. The spokesman insists that the Obama Administration succeeded in getting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a two-state solution. But, asks the reporter, didn't that happen under the Bush Administration? (Actually, it took place in 1996 under the Clinton Administration).

Within a few minutes, the spokesman backs down entirely. Even he cannot think of a credible achievement for the Obama Administration. It reminds one of the famous essay about the snakes of Ireland whose whole text reads: There aren't any. In this case, the progress--to use the euphemistic language of Washington government--has been all in a backward direction.  The exchange is also a great metaphor for the gap between what the Administration has done and what it gets away with claiming on lots of issues.

[PS: Within minutes of finishing the writing of this piece I started spotting media reactions claiming that Israel is "defying" the United States, that Gilo is a "new settlement" built on "Palestinian land," that it is on the West Bank, etc. I don't recall seeing headlines about the PA defying the United States on any of the points discussed above. As anyone who has been in Gilo knows, it's a neighborhood in Jerusalem with 40,000 people, mostly in pre-1967 Israel, the land beyond that border was purchased by Jews before 1948, and  the idea of building 900 more apartments there is in a years-long approval process and no construction whatsoever is imminent.]

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

While the kowtower-in-chief's press shop feeds paeans to free speech into Obama's globetrotting teleprompter, the White House is still waging war on vocal foes at home. Obama has lectured his critics in Washington to stop talking and "get out of the way." He has stacked his carefully staged town halls with partisan stooges and campaign plants throughout the year. The president recently derided limited-government activists in the Tea Party movement with a vulgar sexual term used by left-wing cable host Anderson Cooper on CNN and the MSNBC smear merchants (just Google "teabagging" and you'll see what they mean).

There are now more muzzled watchdogs in the Obama administration than on the sidelines of the Westminster Kennel Club show.

Most recently, two EPA lawyers critical of the "fatally flawed" cap-and-trade system - peddled by their agency, the White House and the Democratic majority - were told by their superiors to yank a video they posted to YouTube explaining their views. Despite including a caveat that the opinions expressed were their own and not the agency's, the couple faces possible disciplinary action by the feds. While demanding the video be yanked, the EPA disingenuously claims it tolerates all dissenting views of its employees.

The clampdown follows on the heels of the Obama EPA's stifling of veteran researcher Alan Carlin's dissent. He dared to challenge the agency's reliance on outdated data to support its greenhouse gas "public endangerment" finding. Carlin's report was squelched; his office is now on the chopping block.

In China, O proclaimed himself "a big supporter of non-censorship." But his FCC "diversity" czar, Mark Lloyd, is bent on re-engineering public airwaves by redistributing free speech rights from conservative haves who earned their success to minority have-nots who demand talk radio entitlements in the name of "media justice."

And among Obama's closest advisers is a husband-and-wife duo who specializes in marginalizing and stifling the Democratic Party's most effective enemies. Just days after White House interim communications director Anita Dunn - the administration's resident Mao cheerleader and Fox News-basher - stepped down to take a planned role as a "consultant" behind the scenes, her husband, Robert Bauer, stepped up and shoved aside White House counsel Greg Craig.

The problem? Former Clinton lawyer Craig wasn't tough enough for Chicago-on-the-Potomac.

Obama needed an intimate ally who will put hardball politics ahead of policy and the law. Bauer fits the bill.

A partner at the prestigious law firm Perkins & Coie, Bauer served as counsel to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Obama for America. He has served as Obama's personal attorney, navigating the corrupted waters of former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pay-for-play scandals in Illinois. He also served as legal counsel to the George Soros-funded 527 organization America Coming Together during the 2004 campaign.

That get-out-the-vote outfit, helmed by Patrick Gaspard (the former Service Employees International Union heavy turned Obama domestic policy chief), employed convicted felons as canvassers and committed campaign finance violations that led to a $775,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission under Bauer's watch.

During the 2008 campaign, Bauer pooh-poohed GOP complaints about voter fraud. While decrying the Republicans' "fear message," it was Bauer who was on a fear-inducing crusade - pulling out all legal stops to silence conservative critics of Obama's ties to the radical left.

As I've noted previously, and in light of Obama's self-serving praise for political dissent abroad, I note again: It was Bauer who lobbied the Justice Department unsuccessfully last fall to pursue a criminal probe of American Issues Project (AIP), an independent group that sought to run an ad spotlighting Obama's ties to Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

It was Bauer and his legal goon squad who attempted to sic the DOJ on GOP donor Harold Simmons and sought his prosecution for funding the ad. In a parallel effort launched the same week as Bauer's legal efforts, a nonprofit called "Accountable America," spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit, began trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with "warning letters" in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising.

It was Bauer who tried to bully television stations across the country into pulling the spot. Team Obama then summoned their troops to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.

With Bob "The Silencer" Bauer now working from the inside and Anita "News Commissar" Dunn working from the outside, Obama has a state media police apparatus the Chinese regime itself could love.

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

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding President Obama's "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's official mission and responsibilities.

According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace."

Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."

Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to...parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget...but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."

In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.

Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."

Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."

Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.

"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

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

In September of 1992 the headline of our newsletter read: HEADLINE: "L.A.'S NUMBER ONE IMPORT: POVERTY" -- Was I right?

"America is importing permanent poverty and California is heading for a train wreck... when the next downturn comes, and it will, state revenue will disappear overnight..." -- Glenn Spencer, Treachery and Treason in America

Ten years ago I began to document the illegal immigration problem in a series of videos under the general title "Immigration: Threatening the Bonds of Our Union" (A quote taken from a speech by Bill Clinton). Today the American Patrol Report is featuring segments of one of those videos -- "Treachery and Treason in America" -- produced in 2000. Take the time to watch these segments and ask yourself: Was I right?

Was I right that the 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler vs. Doe, led to the destruction of the Los Angeles school system? Was I right when I said that Gov. Gray Davis broke the law when he killed Proposition 187? Was I right nine years ago when I said that California was importing poverty and that it was heading for a fiscal train wreck?

There is treachery and treason in America and it has led to the destruction of California. I have the facts to prove it. If you watch these short segments you will understand why the open borders crowd hates me.

 Watch Moment of Peril (2 min.) / Words (2 min.) / Prop. 187 (10 min.) / Importing Poverty (6+ min.)

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

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year. Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations. - Der Spiegel

Dominant Social Theme: It is JUST a time out!

Free-Market Analysis: Can you hear our crazed laughter from where you sit, dear reader? What are "they" going to do NOW. It wasn't farcical enough that we have been put through a decade's worth of arguments about an erroneous weather chart shaped like a hockey stick. No, for the past few years we have had to listen to intelligent and well educated people with lots of degrees tell us that carbon (one of the most plentiful of the gases that make life on this planet viable) was actually a poison and would have to be somehow be diminished, preferably by the voluntary surrender of (get ready for the non-sequitur) toilet paper and meat.

It has been for us (for you, too?) like living through a Jonathan Swift novel. You know the chapter where Gulliver visits the eggheads in the clouds who tell him all sorts of strange things but cannot remember how to properly steer their city in the sky. The same kind of is-this-a-bad-dream? ludicrousness. We keep wondering what it would be like to have Swift, or say, Mark Twain, back on earth for a year or two. But actually, if we had the opportunity, maybe we wouldn't want to chance it, as we think they might shoot themselves.

We sometimes too feel like shooting ourselves in our collective heads (well, two or three of them anyway - we need the rest) when we read this global warming stuff. Or maybe we're supposed to call it climate change now. We can't keep track. Anyway, we love the headline on this article. If WE were to write the headline, dear reader, we might have concluded that a ten-year downward trend in temperatures was more than a "time out," which implies a resumption of higher highs! Do you believe it? We don't. But when were higher temperatures ever definitively proven? Not in our puny lifetimes, we think.

Few other publications write about the elite-retreat. Why not? Aren't we supposed to quake in our very boots at the thought of their vastness and the magnificence? Aren't we supposed to feel hopeless and afraid? That life is out of yours and our control? We think these folks put their pants on one leg at a time, just as we all do.

Anyway, we have taken up the task ourselves. And in the other article in this modest issue of the Bell, we have written about it at some length. So we will just conclude this brief analysis by pointing out that in the pre-Internet era these glitches could easily have been overcome by simply ignoring the evidence. (Ah, for the days when the mainstream media cooperation was a given, and the only game in town.) But with electronic communications it is a great deal harder to ignore what it staring you in the face.

Conclusion: There is nowhere to hide with the Internet switched on. The dominant social themes - the promotions - that the monetary elite dredges up from their false think tanks to inflict upon us all with too-great frequency are literally shriveling under the hot glare of Internet scrutiny. When you control so much of the world's wealth it is not hard to think up ways to scare people into handing over more of their cash via taxes, insurance, inflation, etc. You just have to think of the right nightmare, publicize it, politicize it, turn it into curriculum, and sooner or later people will gladly hand you loads of moola with tears in their eyes. But now, perhaps, the monetary elite has discovered a nightmare all their own.

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

This is perhaps the best newspaper article I've ever read on the phenomenon of radical Islamists in Europe, written from the point of view of those who have left the movement and now discuss how they felt and what they did. Well worth reading. It is by Johann Hari and entitled, "Renouncing Islamism: To the brink and back again."

The two key points are:

First, how some--in this case imprisoned leaders of the Egyptian jihad--developed an alternative Muslim perspective:

"After more than 20 years in prison, they had reconsidered their views. They told him he was false to believe there was one definitive, literal way to read the Koran. As they told it, in traditional Islam there were many differing interpretations of sharia, from conservative to liberal - yet there had been consensus around one principle: it was never to be enforced by a central authority. Sharia was a voluntary code, not a state law. 'It was always left for people to decide for themselves which interpretation they wanted to follow,' he says.

"These one-time assassins taught Maajid that the idea of using state power to force your interpretation of sharia on everyone was a new and un-Islamic idea, smelted by the Wahabis only a century ago. They had made the mistake of muddling up the enduringly relevant decisions Mohamed made as a spiritual leader with those he made as a political ruler, which he intended to be specific to their time and place."

I would call this the rediscovery of conservative traditional Islam, with a bit of a liberal modernist twist. That was the view of Islam which dominated the religion for many centuries between its early era and the recent rise of Islamism.

Second, and particularly fascinating and important is how Western Political Correctness and multiculturalism has disastrously encouraged and legitimized radical Islamism:

"From the right, there was the brutal nativist cry of 'Go back where you came from!' But from the left, there was its mirror-image: a gooey multicultural sense that immigrants didn't want liberal democratic values and should be exempted from them. Again and again, they described how at school they were treated as 'the funny foreign child,' and told to 'explain their customs' to the class. It patronised them into alienation.

"'Nobody ever said - you're equal to us, you're one of us, and we'll hold you to the same standards,' says [Ed] Husain. 'Nobody had the courage to stand up for liberal democracy without qualms. When people like us at [Newham] College were holding events against women and against gay people, where were our college principals and teachers, challenging us?'''

What a devastating indictment of leftist Political Correctness and multi-culturalism that is! Those two paragraphs should be read all over the West and in classrooms. Western behavior encourages radical Islamism by failing to champion Western intellectual, cultural, and political values. The same effect results by turning off the assimilation process.

But also responsible is the behavior of most Muslim leaders in the West who spend their time criticizing Western policies and societies while complaining about how Muslims are treated but never seeming to wage the war against extremism in their own communities.

Incidentally, please note that the word "Israel" is not mentioned in this article, which shows how small a part that issue plays in this movement. It is a revolutionary movement seeking state power and the transformation of Muslim-majority societies, or even of the whole world.

On one point I differ a bit but the differences can be easily reconciled. I am willing to accept the idea that actions like the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq heated up this movement in Europe by seeming to prove that the West was trying to destroy Muslims. But it is equally valid to point out that the Afghan--though not the Iraq--action was necessary to defend against September 11. This is a choice that the Jihadists force against the United States--and regarding Hamas and Hizballah against Israel. In effect, they say: we will attack you. If you don't respond we will become stronger and win; if you do respond we will use that against you by making propaganda. The latter is ultimately less damaging than the former.

Another point of interest in the article is that the British-born radicals were disillusioned by: actual contact with the Jihad, seeing the kinds of societies it created, and coming to understand how different real Muslim-majority societies were from their own vision of the only proper style of Islam. This is important to understand but of course the majority are not persuaded away by such experiences.

At a time when the reality of radical Islamism as an international and internal threat is being explained away or silenced in Western countries--even when Jihadists shouting "Allahu Akbar" gun down their citizens, this article is an important corrective.
---------------------------------
 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

[Part 1]  [Part 2]

In 1860 Mark Twain said, "The shabbiest of all lies is 'silent-assertion', which happens when the media, politicians and church leaders obfuscate, suppress or ignore a social wrong or something going awry in this society." In his time, slavery represented silent-assertion as it led to states rights issues and the Civil War.

Today, the United States races, hell-bent, toward injecting itself with incompatible cultures and languages that do not meld into the foundational culture, religion and people of America.  From 100,000 Muslims in 1991, the U.S. Congress immigrated eight million Muslims into its Christian culture by 2009.  Call it 'multiculturalism' or 'diversity' or 'cultural suicide', but whatever you call it, only chaos results for the host nations that import millions of Muslim immigrants. Examples abound in Great Britain (subway bombings, two separate societies in London), France (fire bombs, riots in 2007, extensive ghettos, massive police presence to quell unrest), Holland (rapes, violence, ghettos), Sweden (rapes, riots and schools), Norway (Norwegians fleeing Muslim neighborhoods), Austria (tension), Spain (train bombings) and Germany (tense social situation).

Former President Bush, days after Islam's attack on the World Trade Center towers now known as "9/11", said, "Islam is a religion of peace."  However, all 19 of the terrorists followed Islam's precepts.  Bush's 'silent-assertion' may equal Great Britain's Neville Chamberlain's obsequious behavior to Adolf Hitler, which, within a few years, led to World War II. 

The following precepts give you an idea why U.S. Army Major Nadal Hassan, a jihadist Muslim, in cold blood, murdered 13 and wounded 29.  He followed, Sura 9, verse 5: "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war." 

A former outraged U.S. Army veteran friend of mine said, "The Roman Empire collapsed due in part to its army taking in too many foreigners.  There is a lesson to be learned from this.  When I was stationed at Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., in 1964, we had in our barracks a black guy who mostly kept to himself and never mingled with the rest of us.  I don't recall him saying anything that would raise suspicion or being disciplined. But during a routine inspection of the barracks, military police discovered in his locker radical black literature and the inside of his locker door covered with color photographs of African warriors, e.g., Mau-Mau, holding spears, large knives, etc.  He was gone before the evening meal and his area completely cleaned out.  Never saw him again.

"This Dr. Hasan should have never been in our military.  Most people don't know this, but about 10 years ago our federal government decided to allow Muslim immigrants upon entering this country to sign a statement saying they would not fight against a Muslim nation.  Fourteen Americans are dead because our stupid government and an education system run by morons who can't get enough of "celebrating" diversity.  On Monday, we had planned to go shopping for a new car.  Instead, I will be part of an American Legion honor guard at the funeral for one of those murdered by this Muslim crud."

Please take notice that the Council of American-Islamic Relations never apologizes for American Muslims that behead their wives, or for honor killings of daughters or its fund-raising for Hamas terrorist activities-here in the United States.  Last week, the FBI shut down four mosques in New York for subversive activities.  Again, refer to Sura 9, verse 5.

The Koran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with non-believers.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads, fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for non-believers to be fought and subdued until they-accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  This proclivity toward violence-modeled by Muhammad's own violent legacy-left a trail of blood across centuries of world history.

The Koran or Qur'an:
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." 

Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".  It includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity.

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them."

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" You might deduce that Muhammad did not enjoy any peaceful or spiritual brotherhood with humanity

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

As you can see from a few verses, Muslims embrace a sacred vow to kill all Jews and non-believers in every stratagem of war.  Additionally, whether it takes 10 years or 100 years, their fight to subdue all mankind to Islam and Allah continues through eternity.

The great conundrum: why Jews in America don't raise their voices to the importation of millions of Muslims. Surely they know that Muslims in the Middle East expect to destroy Israel.  Surely they know that Muslims in Belgium and Holland terrorize Jews and have burned Jewish synagogues.  Surely, they know about outright violence toward Jews in France.  Surely they know, that, as Muslim numbers grow, Jewish citizens face increased violence in America.

As I said before, what happens when another 10 to 20 million more Muslims imbed themselves into America?  Their culture does not represent your garden variety, assimilation-prone immigrants.  One look at Detroit, Michigan will send shivers down any red-blooded non-hyphenated American citizen's spine.

Part 4: Three stages of jihad in America, Robert Spencer at http://www.jihadwatch.org/ , treatment of Muslim women.

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

 Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents - from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border.  In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece.  He presents "The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it" to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges.  He works to bring about sensible world population balance at frostywooldridge.com  He is the author of:  America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans.

Even if his father was not an active practitioner, Obama's Islamic inheritance and his public endorsement of Islam make him a useful Muslim. He can proclaim to be a Christian, and even attend a church, and still be considered a good Muslim if it enables and advances Islam.

President Obama's insistence that America is not in a war with Islam puts us in enormous peril because Islam has declared war on the West. Knowingly or unknowingly; willingly, or not willingly, Obama's position and policies are helpful to the Islamic totalitarian agenda to conquer the West, and render him useful for its advancement to the extent that his naïveté, ignorance, admission, or arrogance will allow.

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Obama could not risk the political fallout of being branded a Muslim, so Candidate Obama never used his middle name "Hussein." Furthermore, it utterance was frowned upon as lest it be an insinuation that he was an Islamic Manchurian candidate. After the election, he tried out his full name in Strasburg and uses it henceforth as if it is normal to the sensibilities of Americans in the wake of 9/11.

Prior to the 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama attended a radical Christian church led by Pastor Jeremiah Wright. However, since becoming President, Obama has demonstrated more passion for Islam than for Christianity. His middle name "Baraq" is reported to be the name of the mythological winged horse that Mohammed claimed carried him to paradise one night in a dream (while was sleeping in Medina).[1]  "Hussein" was the name of the grandson of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Hussein's caliphate succession created a rivalry within Islam, marking the early beginnings of Sunni-Shiite differences. [2]

On his inauguration as President, Barrack Hussein Obama received a letter from the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, congratulating him for his new office, and calling for Obama to recognize the need to forge a new partnership between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Ihsanoglu wrote in the letter: 

"...commitment of the OIC to cooperate in order to promote a constructive dialogue and fruitful joint action in a bid to work out appropriate solutions to the intractable crises that face the Muslim world and the world at large." [3]

 Obama promptly sent an unpublicized reply to Ihasanoglu thanking him for the congratulations wishes. Ihasanoglu is the major backer of the United Nations Defamation of Religions resolution that will end freedom of speech and freedom of conscience by criminalizing opposition to, and skepticism of Islam. The Jeddah-based OIC is made up of 57 Muslim-majority nations heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood agenda, values. The Muslim Brotherhood has the self-described mission of "destroying Western civilization from within."

Ihasanoglu's reply, published in major U.S. newspapers on January 21, 2008, said the OIC urged Obama to work for "shared" peace rather "imposed" peace: 

"We warmly welcome your expressed desire to give a major address in a Muslim nation soon after you assume the presidency and hope it will mark the beginning of a more fruitful and better-informed dialogue between the West and the Muslim world,"

 "We firmly believe that America, with your guidance, can help foster that peace, though real peace can only be shared - never imposed. A nation can either be great or feared, but rarely both at the same time."  [4]

 Soon afterward, Obama showed further allegiance to Islamic causes in an interview with Al Arabia television.

Obama went further to appease Islamists by withdrawing all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center bombing, halt all military trials of the detainees, bar waterboarding, and close all overseas CIA interrogation centers, further allowing an investigation into the CIA.  He has not sent extra troops to Afghanistan as requested by General McChrystal, and he is vowing to close Guantanamo Bay. All this even though a group of five al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo, including one of the attack's masterminds, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, described their charges in a document filed March 10, 2009 titled "The Islamic Response," as:

  "badges of honor, which we carry with pride," further resolving that "killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you...are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion." Obama will also abandon the term "enemy combatant" regarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners, even though the group of five further declared they were "terrorists to the bone."[5]

 Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Friday, November 13, 2009 that the five Guantanamo Bay detainees will be transferred to New York to go on trial in civilian court.[6] The concern is that in a civilian court, they will gain access to American interrogation methods and have a jury of "peers." This holds a "fair trial" and "justice" hostage to interpretation, and in the worse scenario, could ostensibly find them not guilty and release them free of charges because waterboarding was used to obtain evidence, which Obama previously denounced as "torture."

Just prior to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, President Obama signed a Presidential Determination on January 27, 2009 which appeared in the Federal Register on February 4, 2009. The Determination allows for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to "migrate" at American taxpayer expense. Pursuant to the Migration Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, the Determination allowed for $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza, giving aid to Palestinians with ties to Hamas. According to the Register, President Obama's decision was necessary due to the "victims...urgent needs. It is worded: 

 "...it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza." [7]

 In Cairo, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced in an American Initiative to spend more money in the effort to rebuild Gaza, further giving a UN agency authority to administer the funds.  Clinton promised an additional $600 million to cover the Palestinian Authority's budget deficit in the West Bank and $300 million in reconstruction aid to Gaza. [8] Then in early June 2009, The United States agreed to provide another $55 million in funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). That pledge brought 2009 funds given to the UNRWA to $154.5 million.[9]

In confusing statements, Obama has acknowledged the importance of recognizing that there is "a battle or a war" against some terrorist organizations which are not representative of the broader Arab Muslim community."[10]

Choosing his words carefully in an attempt to win over 'moderate' Muslims, Obama answered CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" in a television interview why he has not used the phrase, "war on terror," Obama answered:

 "Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

 In his inaugural address, Obama invited the Muslim world to embark on "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." As president, his first call to a head of state was to none other than Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory. Using an apologetic tone indicating Americans are disrespectful, Obama did not address the fact that the United States and Europe have been the targets of jihadist fanatics for centuries:

 "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama said, although "we sometimes make mistakes" and "have not been perfect," and even though "too often the United States starts by dictating" and fails to use "the language of respect."

 According to an article by Zudhi Jasser in Family Security Matters, Muslims in the U.S. are likely to view Obama's administration as a friendly one. Jasser revealed that the group, The Congressional Muslim Staffers Association (CMSA), is trying to establish themselves in Obama's Administration with prominent and influential positions in the White House, the House, and the Senate. Jasser wrote that the CMSA hosted an inaugural gala for the new President with an invitation list of Islamists in the United States that share the ideologies of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.[11]

Multiple lawsuits filed during the 2008 Presidential Campaign challenged Obama's presidential qualifications. Many believe he is not qualified to be President because he will not produce a physical copy of the birth certificate. Skeptics claim there is ample evidence that Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii as the candidate maintains, believing a birth certificate posted on Obama's campaign website was inauthentic.

A woman who would have known the circumstances of Obama's controversial birth certificate was his own grandmother. Twelve days before the election, Obama went to Hawaii reportedly to visit her. Early in the campaign Obama, admitted that his grandmother, named Madelyn Dunham, was a "typical white person," who was sometimes afraid of some black men." That is about all that the American public knew about Madelyn Dunham until Obama visited her days before the election, in Hawaii. Speculations were that Obama's real intention was to go to Hawaii to be sure his birth certificate did not become public, rather than to visit his grandmother. From the time of the visit until today, the birth certificate remains an enigma because within two weeks of the visit, Madelyn Dunham was deceased. In an ABC's Good Morning America interview prior to Madelyn's death, Obama said:

 "Without going through the details too much, she's gravely ill. We weren't sure and I'm still not sure whether she makes it to Election Day." [12]

 Prior to the Hawaii trip; the media reported that Madelyn Dunham's health had deteriorated after recently breaking a hip, adding that it was uncertain how long she would live. Obama announced the death of his maternal Grandmother on the day before he was elected U.S. President, just eleven days after his trip to Hawaii. In a joint statement with his younger half-sister who was in Hawaii at the time, Obama told the press from North Carolina that his grandmother had died peacefully after a battle with cancer. A CNN report quoted Obama's statement at a rally in Charlotte:

 "She has gone home and she died peacefully in her sleep with my sister at her side... I'm not going to talk about it long because it's hard to talk about."

 After he won the election, Barrack Hussein spoke kindly of his grandmother at his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

 "She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life."[13]

 The ashes of Madelyn Dunham were scattered out to sea in late December while the
Obama family was on a post election "vacation."

Meanwhile, focused on the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship, Hawaii's Governor Linda Lingle placed the birth certificate in question under seal with Hawaii's Department of Health to ensure no one in the press obtained access to it. In a letter to World Net Daily, Governor Lingle said that the birth certificate would be released if Obama requested. The governor's communication did not clarify whether the birth certificate was originally issued by a Hawaiian doctor, or if it was generated in Kenya and subsequently registered in Hawaii.[14]

Contradicting Obama's claim that he was born in Hawaii, Obama's younger half-sister told reporters in a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter that Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. Then, in a February 2008 interview with Honolulu Star-Bulletin she reportedly told reporters that Obama was born at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

Hawaii's KGMB9 News reported that a health official in Hawaii, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, said she had seen a birth certificate. Her explanation was that Hawaiian laws regarding identity theft prevented her from releasing the document. [15]

After multiple dismissed lawsuits to produce the birth certificate, Obama still will not allow the birth certificate's release. The secrecy perpetuates suspicion that Obama is not a naturalized U.S. citizen, and therefore ineligible for Presidency.[16]

Unfortunately, Madelyn Dunham could have helped Obama prove the legitimacy of his citizenship, and possibly could have vouched for those of his acquaintances alleged to be terrorists and communists. She also could have answered the question of who paid for her grandson's expensive tuitions at Hawaii's elite Punahou High School, his Law Degree at Harvard, and some of the papers he wrote.

Barack Hussein Obama's background and associations makes him a well groomed President for Communist and Islamic movements. Sharing mutual goals and historical allies, the grooming consists of radical Communist and Islamic mentors and sponsors like Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, and Kahlil al-Mansour, the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright. 

Saul Alinsky, considered the father of community organizing in Chicago, wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals" which he actually dedicated to Lucifer. The book advocates working within a system to obtain revolutionary 'change' in a given society, noting that it  requires an agitating 'organizer' whose job is to  persuade the people in the community to believe that  unresponsive governments and greedy corporations are the sources of their alleged misery. The organizing agitator then unifies the community to demand what they think they deserve, until governments and corporations grant their wishes in an effort to quiet them.

This excerpt from "Rules for Radicals" describes how to bring about such change:

 "There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system..."

 Alinsky believed the established church communities provided perfect launching for agitation, creating bonds, and for demanding goods and services. A few years after his death, Saul Alinsky's Chicago followers hired Barack Obama as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago's South Side poor neighborhoods.

Organization efforts required associations with pastors and congregants. Realizing that he must join a church, Obama chose the Trinity United Church of Christ where the Black Nationalist pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, preached an anti-American, racist, "black" gospel. It also questions the extent that Obama influenced Jeremiah Wright's radical beliefs as the years went by as Obama would later say that the position may have been the best education he had ever received in the methods of community organizing.

Obama's experiences later broadened to an association with Allison Davis, who hired Barrack Obama in his small Chicago law firm called Davis, Miner, and Barnhill in 1993. Obama left the firm in 1999-2000 to go into business with the Syrian-American housing developer, Tony Rezko who met Allison Davis as a client.

Tony Rezko was one of Obama's first campaign contributors when he ran for the Illinois state senate. From two of Rezko's companies, the contributions were each $1,000. Then in 1998 Senator Obama wrote letters to city and state officials urging them to fund a Davis-Rezko housing project. Tony Rezco was indicted on sixteen counts of financial corruption, charges of fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering, aiding bribery, and demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state government business contracts under Illinois' former governor, Rod Blagojevich. An activist who raised money for both U.S. political parties, Rezko was convicted on multiple charges of federal corruption just one day after Obama became the Democratic Presidential nominee. Obama was cited in the indictment as receiving political contributions out of Rezko's kickback fund.

Tony Rezko hosted fundraising events for Obama and was a member of Obama's Senate campaign finance committee, which collected $14 million for Obama's race against conservative Alan Keyes. In order to avoid a scandal during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama returned $85,000 that Rezko and his family had donated to him.

While Obama served as a state senator in Illinois, he also sat on the board of the nonprofit Woods Fund in 2001. The Woods Fund is a Chicago-based foundation that claims its primary mission is to make financial grants to create and increase opportunities for disadvantaged people and low-income communities.

Barack Obama was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a post he held from 1995-1999 when he stepped down only to remain on the board. Bill Clinton attended the 1995 White House event when philanthropist Walter Annenberg announced that he was making a $500 million grant to cities across the nation for public school reform. Bill Ayers led the group that brought $49.2 million to Chicago and formed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge- the radical "education reform" organization. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) received funding from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Grant, the Woods Fund, and the Joyce Foundation when Obama served on their boards.

Madeline Talbott, head organizer for Illinois ACORN wanted banks to ease down-payment requirements and ignore weak credit histories. She had recruited Obama in the early 1990's to run training sessions for activists pushing the uncertain loans. With many of the loaning decisions reportedly based solely on the color of the borrowers' skin, the cause endorsed lending to people who could never reasonably pay their loans off. One wonders if it could have also been based on their religious affiliations. ACORN would also become a key beneficiary of TARP's rescue plan in October 2008.[17]

Bill Ayers also sat on the board of the Woods Fund Obama participated in awarding grants, including a $70,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago-based group founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi, during his last year on the board of The Woods Fund in 2002.

Part of the "domestic terrorist group," Bill Ayers was former leader of the Weather Underground, a radical left-wing group that advocated violence against the United States that during the late sixties and early seventies, openly called for revolution in America. The Weather Underground participated in the bombings of the U.S. Capital, the Pentagon and a State Department building while Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, hid from law enforcement. In 1981 Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in to federal authorities, but all charges were dropped as a result of alleged government legal misconduct. Both Ayers and Dohrn had gone underground in 1970 after others in the group accidentally detonated a bomb in a Greenwich Village townhouse, killing three of the group's members, which included Ayers girlfriend at that time. In his 2001 memoir, Ayers wrote, "I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers also contributed money to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported in State Board of Elections.[18] When Obama ran his first campaign, Ayers and Dorhn had hosted an event for him, providing further evidence of the closeness of an ongoing political partnership.[19]

Today Ayers is a professor of education and a Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois. He has also authored a series of books about parenting and educating children.

Communist Frank Marshall Davis was a childhood mentor of Obama's. Publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Frank Davis and the young Obama developed a close relationship, listening to "poetry" and getting career advice.

A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintained that Barack Obama and William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer. Born in New York to a Jerusalem born Saudi citizen with Palestinian origins who worked for the UN, Khalidi was the director of the Beirut, Lebanon official Palestinian press agency, FAFA from 1972 through 1983. Khalidi left Chicago for Columbia University in New York, where he holds the Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies. He serves on the faculty as History teacher and he is director of its Middle East Institute in the School of International and Public Affairs.[20]

Bill Ayers and Barack Obama gave testimonials at a goodbye party for Khalidi in Chicago. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department's list of known terrorist groups. Khalidi is the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the UN in September 2007.

Black Muslim lawyer Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour recommended Barack Obama for admission to Harvard Law School in 1988. In the 1960s, al-Mansour was involved with California Bay Area racial politics as founder of a group called the African American Association. He helped Huey Newton and Bobby Seale establish the Black Panther Party. Formerly known as Don Warden, al-Mansour would later become a Muslim. A key figure in the Islamist "stealth" jihad, al-Mansour recruits prison inmates and mosque worshippers to engage in an apocalyptic battle against America. In the words of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic cause is to:

 "Eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within."

 In the mid 1970's, al-Mansour met Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Since then al-Mansour has been an adviser to Saudi billionaires who fund the stealth jihad and spread Wahhabi Islamic extremism in America.[21] Nephew of the late Saudi King Fahd, Prince Alwaleed founded the Alaweed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMSU) that has given millions of dollars to Middle East studies programs at Georgetown, Harvard, UC Berkeley, and other Universities. He offered $10 million to families of victims of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. After Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York rejected the offer, Alwaweed criticized U.S. Middle East policy, especially regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict saying: "Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis as the world (looks the other way)." [22] Alwaweed also suggested that the terrorist attacks were an indication that America "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause."[23]

The Nation of Islam's, Louis Farrakhan endorsed Obama for President. Farrakhan is known for targeting hateful statements toward Jews, whites and homosexuals. In his address to the world at Saviors' Day in 2008, Farrakhan, said:

 "Brothers and sisters, Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way. ...Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, Native Americans, and Blacks? Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would."

President Obama's service to an Islamic agenda extends to participation in the "Alliance of Civilizations." UN-sponsored, the Alliance reflects the views of the OIC.  A 2005 statement issued after a summit in Mecca explains the mission of the Alliance:

 "The Conference underlined the need to collectively endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively coordinate with States as well as regional and international institutions and organizations to urge them to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism."[24]

 During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Obama raised nearly twice that of John McCain.

More than half of the $426.9 million Barack Obama raised by the end of September 2008 came from small donors whose names the Obama campaign would not disclose.

Federal law requires campaigns to identify donors who give more than $200 during the election cycle. In the largest pool of unidentified money that ever flooded into the U.S. election system, the Federal Election Committee (FEC) determined that the Obama campaign drew in $222.7 million in donations of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount came from donors the Obama campaign identified. Since the great majority of those donations did not exceed the $200 threshold, there is no way of knowing who they were from.

The FEC noted unusual patterns in the donations among disclosed donors who went beyond the $200 minimum. FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, but results can take three or four years. [25]

Further endorsement of Islam within his administration came when Obama announced in early February 2009 that he would change a "Faith Based Initiative" originally announced by former President Bush early in 2001. Obama said a new expanded Office for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships will give money to mosques and Islamic charities in a sign of "outreach to the Muslim world."

Writer and journalist, Debbie Schussel reported that President Bush had invited Hezbollah agent and pro-Iranian Imam, Hassan Qazwini to his Crawford ranch to help him design the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Act[26]

The Faith-Based Act creates tax incentives and other advantages to encourage charitable contributions and participation in so-called Faith-Based programs.[27] When addressing criticism that the Act violated separation of church and state as provided for in the "establishment clause" of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the Bush Administration claimed that funds were not for religious purposes, but would constitute a "compassion capital fund" to match private donations to help small community and faith-based charities with non-religious expenses. President Bush maintained that the office would assist and encourage faith-based organizations seeking federal funds for combating problems like "drug addiction, homelessness, and soup." [28]

Further troubling is the unqualified language Barrack Obama used throughout his campaign, and continues to use. He painted an abstract picture of "change" with a broad brush without accurately describing what the change would be. For example, he said that part of the money for the proposed Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan should go to education so that foreign investors would continue to invest in America, while promising to "return America's wealth to its rightful owners." What education (or re-education) efforts this will include is largely left to the imagination, as he mentioned Science and Math as mere examples. In his first Press Conference at the White House later the same day, February 9, 2009, he added Libraries and Labs, this time without mentioning Science and Math, and adding that we need to "experiment with Charter Schools, hire new teachers and fire bad teachers." Does he mean that we need Charter schools like the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) in Minnesota recently been discovered to be promoting Islam with taxpayer dollars? Therefore, an increase in education funding could ostensibly include more than Americans would allow to if they knew the details, such as an expansion of what Clinton paved the way for in his 1995 Education Guidelines; funding Islamic programs disguised as cultural enlightenment.

The definition of good and bad is merely suggestive based on what we expect and think is right. Americans can agree that currently good teachers do not get enough recognition, and it is difficult to fire bad teachers. We assume education reform efforts will uphold traditional American values of freedom and liberty. But without qualification, the unqualified statements could actually mean that funds will be used to hire new teachers who will be submissive to an agenda, and to fire those who support American traditions and Constitutional values.

Obama wants to create more jobs with infrastructure projects, but who will be hired? What companies will get the contracts? And who are the foreign investors Obama hopes will invest in America? Is Obama part of a larger plan to provide labor and money for the oil rich Saudis, who are known to fund financial jihad, and have been successful in keeping secret the American corporations they have ownership in? Obama pressured Americans to pass the stimulus bill quickly by disaster, saying, "so we must act quickly to avoid disaster."

What disaster is he referring to? Could the urgency actually be extortion to ward off a potential terrorist attack? Americans need to realize that unqualified statements are potential threats because without specific word qualification and transparent plans, any definition is possible from a man who is potentially unqualified to even hold the office of U.S. President.

Consistent with the premise of this book and the examples in this chapter, that our leaders have willingly or unwillingly coerced Americans to accept Islam while steadily making the U.S. a dhimmi nation, Obama bowed down to  Saudi King Abdullah at the G20 in Europe. Expressions on the faces of onlookers showed both amusement and surprise, and many Americans called the spectacle a national disgrace. Just a few months earlier in Cairo, Obama said that the U.S. is "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." Perhaps Obama bowed down to the Emperor Akihito of Japan a few months later to make the bow to Saudi King Abdullah appear normal, as he had not bowed down to any leader previously.

The federal government requires "sensitivity training" for federal employees, including those who work at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Obama has appointed Arif Alikhan, a Sunni Muslim as Assistant Secretary to Homeland Security, and Kareem Shora, the national executive director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, to a position on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

The repression of political correctness combined with acceptance of Muslims in the U.S. military produced 13 victims when Army Major Nidal Hasan went on a murderous rampage at Fort Hood only days after the House Judiciary Committee removed a part of the USA Patriot Act for tracking non-U.S. citizens in anti-terrorism investigations. Obama would not admit it was an act of Islamic terror in spite of mounting evidence that proves Major Hasan had been openly espousing Islamic jihad in the military against non-Muslims for years.

Obama has nationalized entire industries with taxpayer bailouts, passed the Economic Stimulus Bill, pushed the Health Care Bill, and the Cap and Trade Bill, converting a once free-market into a government-run socialist state. All of these actions rely on heavily increased taxes from the American taxpayer with more control over their lives for generations to come.

Obama's leniency toward Islam provokes the question of whose and what interests he is really standing for. The man with the name Barack Hussein Obama apologizes for America to Muslim nations while he endorses Islam in America. However shocking it may seem, and whatever the intentions, with Islam's nose in American government, the socialist plans are paving the way to generations of dhimmitude. The inflicting control over American lives the plans will cause and the taxes Americans will have to pay to put them into action is analogous to a jizya tax in accordance to Islamic doctrine-taxes imposed on non-Muslims to control them until they embrace Islam completely.

Footnotes and References

Al Gore, you are a scoundrel! You refuse to debate Lord Monckton on your own findings and now you alter the cover of your own book by changing geographic and satellite imagery to promote your twisted agenda for the purpose of creating Gore Wealth and a Gore Legacy.  All the while your actions will "gore" the American Citizen. Shame on you and the truth always prevails, sir, always.

When the editor of Right Side News heard about this one on the Rush Limbaugh show today and then saw the visual evidence on WattsUpWithThat.com, and Prison Planet...this is totally amazing that the "TV media" with the likes of idiots like Chris Matthews has not picked up on this.

Apparently the "TV Media" are allies of "Gore the Deceiver", and it's time we turn off the "TV Media".........fire them! ...and get active in your local grassroots organizations and political processes.

We need to take the Pulitzer from the liar Gore and present this to the person who discovered his lie on the cover of his new book.

We have NO HOPE for the current administration, deceivers like Monster Gore and CHANGE back to conservative values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the constraints and mandates of Big Brother bullying, twisted values and deceptive practices like Gore's global warming FICTION.  Take his new book and catagorize it as SF!, because it IS!

Now, my fellow Americans, see for yourself the altered book cover of Al Core the Deceiver..

Al Gore's new book had a problem - no big hurricanes since Katrina to put in the book to look "threatening" to the USA. Any imagined link between hurricanes and global warming has evaporated.

Solution: the artists airbrush.

Ryan Maue, hurricane expert from the University of Florida writes:

Anthony,

The cover opens and closes half and half - so you only see one hurricane...as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon

The cover opens and closes half and half - so you only see one hurricane...as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon.

But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some "artist") Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula...and the final product:

 WUWT?

A midget Southern Hemisphere cyclone is off the coast of Florida, another hurricane is sitting on the equator off the coast of Peru - and the Arctic Ice is gone (perhaps it is summer) and the Florida Peninsula is half gone

There are other differences I am sure you can find - but the hurricanes are just nonsense...

Ryan

Here's the book cover:

November's elections showed that the American people are waking up to the economic disasters Barack Obama is inflicting on America. The voters are upset and angry about Obama and his congressional cohorts creating debt for our children and grandchildren that can be paid only by Middle Class taxes and inflation, taking over whole industries such as health care, and deceiving us with the expensive Stimulus bill that creates only government (not private sector) jobs.

Some of the popular homemade signs carried at the Tea Party rallies said it all. "I love my country, but I don't trust my government."

In the most controversial election on November 3rd, New York House District 23, Republican Party leaders made the mistake of nominating a pro-abortion, pro-same-sex-marriage, pro-Obama Stimulus package, pro-Card Check feminist (who ultimately endorsed the Democrat), and then giving her nearly a million dollars of national Republican campaign funds. Conservatives rebuked the Party by running a real conservative on the Conservative Party ticket, who was then endorsed by a prestigious list of Republicans led by Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Jim DeMint, and the Club for Growth.

The conservative, Doug Hoffman, lost narrowly to the Democrat (who got 49 percent of the vote), but the race taught several valuable political lessons. The road to Republican victory is to nominate a real conservative because the voters absolutely will not accept an appointed liberal, feminist, or RINO.

The voters will not be fooled by slogans that we must "broaden the base" of the Party and become more "inclusive" by adopting the other Party's positions. Conservative Republicans want to be "inclusive" like Ronald Reagan, and they welcome the Tea Party people, Joe the Plumber, and those who realize that jobs are the big issue today.

The 2009 elections show that conservatives are winning the Independents, the same Independents who voted for Obama in 2008 and are now disillusioned with his brand of "change." Conservatives can win if they dominate the Republican Party as they did in 1980.

The Gallup Poll shows that conservatives now outnumber liberals nationwide 40 percent to 21 percent. And self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states (even in Massachusetts!).

Another lesson we learn from the New York race is that a Third Party is not the way to go. If there ever were a viable Third Party, it is the New York Conservative Party, which has had a respectable place on New York ballots for many years, but it still couldn't elect Doug Hoffman.

Conservatives who are in the political game to win must participate in Republican primaries and precinct caucuses and nominate conservatives on the Republican ticket. That route is vastly easier, less expensive, and more productive than trying to build a Third Party.

Other November elections that were happy news for conservatives included the big victory of authentic conservative Bob McDonnell as Governor of Virginia (a state that went for Obama in 2008), and the amazing victory of Chris Christie as Governor of blue-state New Jersey (despite incumbent Jon Corzine spending $25 million on reelection).

In Pennsylvania, overcoming three-times-as-much spending by the trial lawyers, conservatives elected Republican Judge Joan Orie Melvin to the crucial vacancy on the state supreme court. This court had been tied 3 Democrats to 3 Republicans, and will control redistricting, which could mean the gain or loss of three or four Republicans in Congress.

On November 3rd, Maine became the 31st state to uphold the traditional definition of marriage by a vote of the people. Maine voters repealed Maine's new state law allowing same-sex marriage.

The pro-homosexual New York Times has sunk into deep depression about what it called "a crushing loss" for the homosexual agenda, which had counted on winning because it spent "far more money" and "geography was on their side" in New England, the most pro-gay section of the country. The gays now fear revival of the pre-Olympia Snowe slogan, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation."

As the old adage reminds us, coming events cast their shadows before them. Conservatives are gearing up with hope for the 2010 congressional elections.

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

 Phyllis Schlafly was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal. She has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo, and a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum.

Mrs. Schlafly is the founder and president of Eagle Forum, a national organization of citizens who participate as volunteers in the public policymaking process. It maintains offices on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. and in Alton, Illinois. She is also the founder and president of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, a think-tank which has its national headquarters at the Eagle Forum Education Center in St. Louis.

"Let's be clear when Anwar Al Awlaki was at Dar Al-Hijrah, he was articulating the same message that I articulate today in Dar Al-Hijrah, a very open, a very engaging, a very community wise and contemporary understanding of the faith within the framework of its traditionalism."

But a look at Awlaki's statements and connections during his time at the northern Virginia mosque shows that, at best, Malik's characterization was misinformed as to the facts. While at Dar Al-Hijrah, a mosque with a history of leadership tied to terrorists, Awlaki made statements that endorsed terrorism and defended the 9/11 hijackers.

Awlaki participated as a scholar in a forum of the popular Islamist and Yusuf al-Qaradawi-linked website, Islamonline.net, the week after the 9/11 attacks. In it, he tacitly endorsed terror against Israeli civilians and denied that any Muslim extremists were a threat to Americans:

"There is no Muslim who advocates killing American civilians. We haven't heard that before. If you are talking about Palestinians fighting in Israel, these are freedom fighters fighting an illegal occupation. Muslims have never targeted American civilians."

That's an odd claim, since it had been more than three years since Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa saying that "to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

In the same Islamonline chat, Awlaki also expressed doubt that Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks:

"The evidence coming out is perplexing. You have a right to be confused. It appears that these people were victims rather than hijackers. It seems that the FBI went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default." [Emphasis added]

Furthermore, in a Washington Post forum in November 2001, Awlaki defended the Taliban movement and accused America of rushing into war in Afghanistan. At the time, the Taliban had been openly supporting Al Qaeda. Al-Awlaki argued:

"The Taliban repeatedly said: show us the evidence and we will turn over whoever is guilty with the crime. The US should have given them the benefit of the doubt."

Johari Abdul Malik, who has taken the lead in defending Dar Al-Hijrah and Awlaki, has his own record of radical statements. At a 2001 conference hosted by the Islamic Association of Palestine, a component of a U.S.-based network of Hamas-supporters, Malik called for attacks against Israeli infrastructure to show Muslim displeasure with Israel's treatment of Palestinians:

"I am gonna teach you now. You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies... the water supply, you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people."

Malik has called for Islamic supremacy in America, as he did in a November 2004 Friday Khutba, or sermon:

"Alhamdullilah [Praise to Allah] and we will live, will see the day when Islam, by the grace of Allah, will become the dominant way of life... I'm telling you don't take it for granted because Allah is increasing this din [religion] in your lifetime. Alhamdullilah [Praise to Allah] that soon, soon... before Allah closes our eyes for the last time, you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America - that's where we are now - to being the first religion in America."

Radicalism among Dar Al-Hijrah's leadership is not limited to Malik. At a June 5, 2001 press conference and sit-in at the State Department, Dar Al-Hijrah's current head imam, Shaker Elsayed, was asked, "Do you condemn the terrorist attacks from Hamas and the suicide bombings?" Shaker Elsayed replied in support of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians:

"I made a statement that we do support the Palestinian resistance...The so-called Israeli settlers are not civilian population. They are military reserves, they are armed, trained and dangerous. They invade the Palestinian neighborhoods at night and squander everything. They kill, maim, and destroy homes. If I were there, I would use every power in my hand to defend my family."

And:

"So long as occupation continues, we say to the Palestinian people, go ahead. Continue your fight against occupation no matter what name they give you because we give you the name of courageous people who stand for the rights and we're standing with you."

Yet another example of Elsayed's radicalism can be viewed here.

More than simple pro-terrorist rhetoric, elements of Dar Al-Hijrah's leadership and membership have provided financial and logistical support to terrorist organizations. Records from the successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development show that Abdulhaleem Al-Ashqar, a former member of Dar Al-Hijrah's Board of Trustees convicted of contempt and obstruction of justice, organized a 1993 meeting of Hamas members and sympathizers in Philadelphia. He was also the director of the Hamas-linked Al Aqsa Educational Fund. Likewise, Ismail Elbarasse, a founder of Dar Al-Hijrah, worked for Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and wired $735,000 to Hamas operative Mohammad Salah.

Likewise, additional imams who preceeded and followed Al-Awlaki at Dar Al-Hijrah have been linked to terrorist fundraising groups and extremism.

Mohammed Al-Hanooti, Dar Al-Hijrah's imam from 1995-1999, was the former director of the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 1995, federal prosecutors in New York named Al-Hanooti as a potential unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. While Hanooti had been an imam at the Islamic Center of Jersey City, the FBI considered him to be "a big supporter of Hamas," and the Albany Times Union reported in June 2002 that he regularly hosted events featuring terrorist mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman.

Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, the imam of Dar Al-Hijrah from August 2003-May 2005, was the former regional director of the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA) in Baltimore. In October 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the worldwide network of IARA, along with five of its senior officials, as Specially Designated Terrorist Groups. The government declared: "Information available to the U.S. indicates that international offices of IARA provided direct financial support for UBL [Osama Bin Laden]." IARA also supported the terrorist groups Hamas and Al-Ittihad Al-Islamiya (AIAI). El-Sheikh was also an active member of the Muslim Brotherhood in his native Sudan from 1973-1977.

All of these facts contradict Malik's assertion that Anwar Al Awlaki was a moderate during his time at Dar Al-Hijrah, or that the mosque is free from violent rhetoric that leads to radicalism. If connections to 9/11 hijackers, praise for Hamas and ties to terrorist support mechanisms are considered moderate, it's fair to ask what Malik considers to be extreme.

The released offenders include at least 128 murderers, more than 400 child rapists and molesters, some 300 charged with aggravated assault and dozens more accused of sexual assault, aggravated robbery, kidnapping and other grave felonies.  

Dallas County prosecutors provided the data to a local newspaper, calling it a "wish list" of people they would have liked to see tried. Instead the illegal immigrant criminals got away after bonding out and getting transferred to immigration facilities where they agreed that returning home was better than going to prison in America.

The 1,000 figure doesn't even include all the illegal immigrant criminals the feds helped get off in the nation's eighth-largest county, only the most serious, according to frustrated Dallas County officials. They assure defendants knowingly use the system as a means to avoid prosecution. The sad thing, of course, is that a federal agency is aiding and abetting them.

It could be worse, however. The criminals could be released in the U.S., which ICE does regularly and attributes to resource shortages. Earlier this year a Houston newspaper obtained public records that revealed the agency has freed hundreds of illegal immigrants convicted of felonies-including homicide, sexual assault and weapons violations-in the last few years alone. In many cases ICE doesn't even know the whereabouts of the criminal aliens, who were released in various different states. 

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

But mainly this article is an addendum to my previous dispatch from the classroom front about the teaching of Japanese internment during World War Two in my son's fourth-grade class (see here). The kids were informed that also interned were Koreans and Chinese because the Americans couldn't tell the difference between them. This is nonsense, of course, for Americans in 1941-1942 were easily able to do so.

Saying this is not to deny discrimination in immigration and other ways against Chinese, especially in California, in earlier years. If put side by side to the treatment suffered by every wave of immigrants starting with the Irish, however, it was quite comparable in many ways. I'm not, however, writing about that but rather on the situation by the 1930s and 1940s.

There is a wider problem here, an element of World War Two largely forgotten today, that gives us a key for understanding how America's story is distorted. In the United States at that time, there was tremendous sympathy for the Chinese before and during the war, and also for the Filipinos once the Japanese attacked. There are many articles and films of that period which express admiration and respect for these two groups. (Korea was pretty much unknown.)

Americans were well informed about the sufferings of the Chinese at the hands of Japan and there was much indignation about it. In fact, this is a major element now largely overlooked. It was because of what we would call today human rights concerns that the United States put up economic embargos on Japan, especially for oil and petroleum products.

Indeed, a major reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was this U.S. pressure on Tokyo. Just as the United States was nominally neutral but supported the United Kingdom against Nazi Germany, it also supported China against imperial Japan. This was noble behavior on the part of the United States. We should remember that estimates of Chinese war deaths, overwhelmingly civilian, were twenty million.

Once the war began, the United States worked hard to help and supply the Chinese Nationalist forces--many American airmen died taking supplies "over the hump" from Burma to China, and also came to work with the Communists as well. The Chinese Communist revolution after the war and the long hostility helped push these facts into oblivion.

Why is this important today? Because typically Political Correctness and the anti-Americanism so prevalent, in its urge to indict America as racist, ignores the fact that the United States was usually on the side of one "non-white" or Third World group against another. U.S. interventions in Latin America, for example, were almost always due to being asked for help by one faction against another.

While at times the United States intervened on behalf of dictatorships (Guatemala, 1953, being a prime example), it almost equally often (at least except for the brief high Cold War combat against Castro's Cuba in the 1960s and early 1970s when Washington felt the dangerous situation necessitated backing anyone who was anti-Communist) was on the side of democratic forces. If Fidel Castro had ruled as a liberal democrat he would have had an excellent relationship with the United States.

Today American children are being taught in all too many classrooms that their country was always racist and imperialist. Even if you accept the basic framework of contemporary historical views this simply isn't true. The United States was not "against" Asian people in 1941, for example. It supported one group of Asians against another and it was on the right side.

I remember growing up on films and books about heroic pre-World War Two Chinese peasants trying to eke out a living against flood and famine or bravely battling the Japanese (as with those who saved the American airmen from the Jimmy Doolittle raid on Tokyo) and films about brave Filipino partisans fighting side by side with American forces against great odds. There was never any distinction made on the basis of race or to portray these people as inferior. For that matter, compared to what went on in other countries (even among warring Europeans) materials about the Japanese enemy were pretty mild stuff despite Pearl Harbor.

It should equally be noted that today, and for the past half-century, the United States has not opposed or fought against "Arabs" or "Muslims" but supported one group against another. During the period between the 1950s and 1990s, those treated as enemies were radical, anti-American, and usually aligned with the USSR. Since then, they have been usually radical Islamists who want to install dictatorships even worse than the existing ones.

The United States has very little to apologize for in its history, especially compared to pretty much any other country on the face of the earth. Are we ever going to see the day when it is fashionable to be proud of America again, a pride that can easily be based on the facts?

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

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

The Department of the Interior is considering this and it would cover much of the Arctic, including the sea ice of the Arctic Ocean. The Sierra Club is worried because Shell Oil wants to drill for oil in the Beaufort Sea, a part of the "critical habitat for the bear."

So, for anyone who doesn't think that thwarting all attempts to drill for oil in the Arctic isn't the real reason to "save" the thriving polar bear population, the answer is that it has nothing to do with polar bears and everything to do with the primary goal of all environmental organization, denying energy sources to Americans and everyone else.

Indeed, the Sierra Club said declaring the polar bear endangered was "necessary to stop harmful activities such as oil drilling." So I guess it doesn't get any more plain than that.

The Sierra Club went on to blatantly lie about the status of polar bears, claiming that "survival rates for polar bear cubs are plunging." It is common knowledge that male polar bears are known to kill cubs, but the survival rates have much more to do with the mother bear's ability to catch ringed seals.

Ironically, polar bears' favorite delicacy is the pups of ringed seals. Mother Nature doesn't much care who wins the survival marathon and the Sierra Club is not calling for an endangered species declaration for ringed seals.

The Sierra Club is lying. The Natural Resources Defense Council is lying. The World Wildlife Fund is lying. They could not care less about polar bears. Their objective is shutting off access to anywhere that has oil or natural gas reserves.

In a July 2006 a report, "Polar Bear Politics: Underestimating the survival capacity of one popular bear" by Jennifer Marohasy, the Director of the Food and Environmental Unit at the Australian based Institute of Public Affairs was published. The estimate of the population is "about 25,000 polar bears existing in 19 relatively discrete populations across Norway, Denmark, Russia, Alaska, Greenland, and Canada."

"Forty years ago, there were only about 5,000 bears, the worldwide population depressed by hunting." In the 1970s, nations agreed to restrict hunting, resulting in the growth of the population.

The BIG LIE is that the Arctic is melting because of "global warming." The Arctic has, in fact, "warmed" over the past two decades and there has been a reduction in sea ice, but there has been no "global warming", only a natural cycle of warming that followed a Little Ice Age that ended around 1850 after three hundred years.

In fact, in October 2007, NASA announced the results of an in-depth study of Arctic sea ice and concluded what melting had occurred was due "a change in wind patterns" that had "compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream, and then sped its flow out of the Arctic." Wind patterns, not "global warming."

The Earth is now into a new cooling cycle that began in 1998 and which meteorologists predict will last for several decades. What they won't tell you is that they have their fingers crossed that it does not, in fact, signal a new Ice Age. The period between ice ages is about 11,500 years and the Earth is at the end of the interglacial period that has allowed for the rise of human civilization in the past five thousand years or so.

So, the fate of the polar bear is such that they are more likely to survive a new Ice Age than billions of humans in the northern hemisphere.

As should be obvious to everyone, the reduction of Arctic sea ice or the population of ringed seals has had no correlation whatever with the growth of the polar bear population. Indeed, if there hadn't been a period of glaciation about 250,000 years ago and a bunch of formerly brown bears had not become isolated and had not adapted successfully, there would be no polar bears.

Further putting the lie to the Sierra Club and other environmental organization's predictions is the fact that polar bears live in remote and inhospitable parts of the Arctic. In addition, they are not stationary, roaming over an area as large as two hundred square kilometers in search of tasty seals. Most of the time, humans can't even visit or fly over the vast bulk of the Arctic to make any kind of count.

The Sierra Club has no idea how many polar bears actually exist in the Arctic and any claim that they are "endangered" is pure balderdash. I could use another word to describe such claims, but my Mother told me not to.

So, to sum up, the Sierra Club is LYING about polar bears and you would be well advised to take anything else they have to say with a grain of Arctic Sea salt.

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

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Barack Obama conceded over the weekend that no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be signed in Copenhagen next month. With that out of the way, it may be too much to hope that the climate change movement take a moment to reflect on the state of the science that is supposedly driving us toward a carbon-neutral future.

But should a moment for self-reflection arise, campaigners against climate change could do worse than take a look at the work of Stephen McIntyre, who has emerged as one of the climate change gang's Most Dangerous Apostates. The reason for this distinction? He checked the facts.

The retired Canadian businessman, whose self-described "auditing" a few years ago prompted a Congressional review of climate science, has once again thrown EnviroLand into a tailspin. In September, he revealed that a famous graph using tree rings to show unprecedented 20th century warming relies on thin data. Since its publication in 2000, University of East Anglia professor Keith Briffa's much-celebrated image has made star appearances everywhere from U.N. policy papers to activists' posters. Like other so-called "hockey stick" temperature graphs, it's an easy sell-one look and it seems Gadzooks! We're burning ourselves up!

"It was the belle of the ball," Mr. McIntyre told me on a recent phone call from Ontario. "Its dance card was full."

At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia's Yamal region. When Mr. McIntyre presented a second graph, adding data from 34 tree cores from a nearby site, the temperature spike disappears.

Mr. Briffa denounces Mr. McIntyre's work as "demonstrably biased" because it uses "a narrower area and range of sample sites." He says he and his colleagues have now built a new chronology using still more data. Here, as in similar graphs by other researchers, the spike soars once again. Mr. McIntyre's "work has little implication for our published work or any other work that uses it," Mr. Briffa concludes.

He and his colleagues may well ignore Mr. McIntyre, but the rest of us shouldn't. While Mr. McIntyre's image may use data from fewer sites, it still has nearly three times as many tree cores representing the modern era as Mr. Briffa's original.

Yet Mr. McIntyre is first to admit his work is no bullet aimed at the heart of the theory of man-made climate change. Rather, his work-chronicled in papers co-written with environmental economist Ross McKitrick and more than 7,000 posts on his Climateaudit.org Weblog-does something much more important: It illustrates the uncertainty of a science presented as so infallible as to justify huge new taxes on rich countries along with bribes to poor ones in order to halt their fossil-fueled climbs to prosperity. Mr. McIntyre offers what many in the field do not: rigor.

It all started in 2002 when-as many might given the time and Mr. McIntyre's mathematics background-he decided to verify for himself the case for action on climate change.

"It was like a big crossword puzzle," he told me. "Business was a bit slow at the time, so I started reading up."

Prior to the Briffa graph revelation, he had also caught a statistical error that undercut another exalted "hockey stick" graph prominently featured by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, this one by Michael Mann, head of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. Alerts about review boards' seemingly lax standards litter his blog, highlighting in particular the IPCC, which has used both the Mann and Briffa graphs in its reports. In 2007, Mr. McIntyre found a technical gaffe that forced NASA to correct itself and admit that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year recorded in the continental U.S.

"At the beginning I innocently assumed there would be due diligence for all this stuff. ... So often my mouth would drop, when I realized no one had really looked into it."

Even more innocently, he assumed the billion-dollar climate change industry would welcome his untrained but painstaking work. Instead, Mr. McIntyre is subjected to every kind of venom-that he must be funded by Big Oil, by Big Business, by Some Texan Somewhere. For the record, the 62-year-old declares himself "past my best-by date, operating on my own nickel."

James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute, has dismissed him as a "court jester." Mr. Mann replied to an emailed query about Mr. McIntyre by decrying "every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself."

Others are more thick-skinned: "You mention his name in my community, people just smile. It's a one-liner to get a laugh out of a group of climate scientists," affirms Stanford University's Stephen Schneider.

One wonders what is so funny, when it is not only the Canadian hobbyist fueling skepticism, but also figures from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center that now show thickening Arctic ice; from the U.K. Met (Meteorological) Office showing falling temperatures that contradict modeling predictions; and other studies that suggest natural factors in climate change are being dramatically underestimated.

Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review. But the best science should stand up even to outside scrutiny. And if Mr. McIntyre has a credibility problem with climatologists, climatologists' predictions are increasingly viewed skeptically by the public.

A Pew report last month revealed that the number of Americans who believe humans are causing climate change has dropped 11 percentage points in the last 18 months to 36%; that the number who feel there is solid evidence that the earth is warming has fallen by 14 points to 57%; and that those who think the issue is "very serious" has sunk nine points to 35%.

Mr. McIntyre declares no interest in debunking The Theory in toto, nor in discouraging efficient energy use. His blog will disappoint those seeking anything more political than technical analyses.

In fairness, researchers are far from the loudest voices telling "skeptics" like Mr. McIntyre to sit down, shut up and surrender their lightbulbs without further question-that megaphone belongs to the politicians and activists pushing centrally-planned economies in the name of saving the Earth. Here, we see that contempt for laymen is not universal: Al Gore's ignorance is happily overlooked given his power to push billions in research funding. The same goes for Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, and everyone else declaring "the debate is over."

I asked 10 climatologists what they thought was the most reliable method of predicting climate, and got nearly as many answers. People in the field compare climate studies to health studies-another complex mechanism with uncontrollable factors, where best practices will always be debated.

Climate researchers know their prescriptions don't carry the certainty laymen assume from that which is labeled "science," yet most shy from a straightforward account of this uncertainty.

"Methods certainly need to be continually refined and improved. I doubt that anyone in the paleoclimate community would disagree with that," says Rob Wilson of the University of St. Andrews's School of Geography and Geosciences. "However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen-and would they want to know? I do not think this would help."

Maybe not, but letting people feel duped by hyperbole is proving even more harmful to the warmers' cause.

"I never said I was proving or disproving anything.... I just don't think we should be thanking the people who make it harder to find out what's true," Mr. McIntyre says.

The climate establishment will probably never thank Mr. McIntyre, much less follow his example. The rest of us should do both.

Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.

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

As the story of Nidal Hassan unfolds, it becomes painfully clear that the Jihadi Shrink who opened fire on US troops at Fort Hood did everything but spray paint, "I Am Going To Kill You All" on the wall, before he actually carried out his attack. Not only did Hassan put a Jihadist abbreviation on his business cards, he delivered repeated lectures justifying Jihad, accused the soldiers he was supposed to treat of War Crimes and was already being investigated for contacts with Al Queda and for defending suicide bombing online.

At a time when snow globes are banned at airports and detectors are positioned in every Federal building, in the heart of the United States Army, a Jihadist like Nidal Hassan could openly and freely express his sympathies and affinity for terrorism. But the thing that Nidal Hassan had going for him, that the snow globes and baby bottles filled with breast milk didn't, is that Hassan was a Muslim, and ever since 9/11, Americans have been repeatedly warned against criticizing Islam. Told over and over again that Islam is the Religion of Peace, and that just because all our foreign terrorists happen to be Muslims acting in the name of Islam does not actually matter. Just as all those Japanese planes flying toward Pearl Harbor and the German factories producing tanks meant nothing in the 1930's.

Hassan's superiors were well aware of what he was, but none of them wanted to risk a charge of Islamophobia. And so they remained silent and soldiers died. That is not a chant you will hear from anti-war activists at the gates of the White House, but that is exactly what happened. And Hassan's case is from unique. There is no telling how many terrorists have flown under the radar because officials were afraid to be accused of profiling or charged with racism. We may never know what reports were never paid attention to because it has become more acceptable to lose American lives, than detain a Muslim.

In the face of Islamic terror, there are endless desks staffed by good men who do nothing and say nothing. Because they have been told that it is more important to be silent, than to take action, when it comes to the Islamic Jihad against all non-Muslims. It is more important to search everyone, than to profile Muslim terrorists. It is better to have lax security, than to have good security that may make some of our friends from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel upset. That is how we did it before 9/11. And that is how we are doing it today, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gets his lawyers and the media does the hard work of manufacturing Nidal Hassan's PTSD by Proxy defense for him out of thin air, and the radical Imams whom Nidal Hassan came into contact with are whitewashed with the usual thin paste of the Religion of Peace.

But silence on Islam kills. It kills when we remain silent about the Nidal Hassans in our midst. It kills when people look away as honor killings among Muslim families continues to grow. It kills as Muslim gangs like the Muslim Boys in the UK form and it kills as Muslim riots claim the lives of innocent people, as they repeatedly do in Europe. But when it comes to Muslims, there is a code of silence that falls over even the most committed officials. A directive that warns them to look away, to make excuses and to blame anything and everything but Islam. To deny the truth and cover up the crime.

While Hassan is one example of the cost of silence, honor killings are another. The willingness of American and European social workers to ignore abuse in Muslim families as "part of their culture" or worse yet to recruit Muslim police officers who often take the victim right back to the abuser, is part of the same Culture of Silence on Islam.

As Nidal Hassan spun his web of hate right in the faces of the men and women who were supposed to stop his kind, Honor Killings develop right in front of the faces of those who are supposed to prevent them. And both Hassan and Honor Killings share a common premise, the belief by Muslims that in the absence of Sharia, or Islamic Law, they have the right to apply Sharia and take the law into their own hands.

While it is easy to try and dismiss Islamic crimes as emotional or disturbed. To assume that a man who opens fire on soldiers or a father who kills his own daughter is crazy, that is an American interpretation of events. One that treats behavior deviating from social conventions as demonstrating psychological or emotional instability. But that presumption ignores the fact that while their behavior may deviate from American social conventions, they accord with the social conventions of many Muslim nations.

Nidal Hassan's behavior might seem deranged to Americans, but is considered normal and praiseworthy back in the mosques of Gaza or the West Bank. While to his classmates, Hassan might have seemed deranged, he was in fact a perfectly normal Palestinian Arab Muslim. The problem was that he happened to be a Palestinian Arab Muslim living and working among Americans. Yet liberals who routinely boil everything down to cultural differences can't seem to grasp that the difference between homicidal mania and religious martyrdom is in this case a religious and cultural difference as well.

Nidal Hassan did not just snap one day. Nor did he act out of anger. Instead he studied the issue. He read the Koran many times. He even tried to distinguish which soldiers were specifically guilty of death and should be killed. Hassan is a mass murderer, but he is an Islamic mass murderer, following codes similar to those used by Al Queda, Hamas and the Taliban. The codes spun off from the same Islamist teachings that have helped create generations of willing suicide bombers and willing terrorists.

The actions of Jordanian, Iraqi and Pakistani men who murder their daughters or sisters may be abnormal by Western standards, but are behaving in a way that is considered acceptable and even praiseworthy in their own cultures, where a family's honor is tied to the chastity of its women, and where individual rights are subsumed within the family and the tribe. Their behavior is wrong by objective human standards, but approved of by their culture and beliefs. And it is unrealistic to imagine that immigration is the same thing as moral transformation.

Liberals who condemn such talk as bigoted, are ignoring the fact that it is about ideology, not about race. Last week the London Times carried an interview with a British former altar boy who had gone to fight with the Taliban and was eager to kill fellow British troops. Adam Gadahn, the Al Queda spokesman, is a grandson of a member of the Board of Directors of the ADL and an editor for The Chronicle Christian. Jose Padilla started out as a member of a Latin street gang. The only thing they had in common was not race, but ideology. The ideology of Islam.

Muslims may be from any race or ethnicity, but what they have in common is a religion of death that is dedicated to imposing Islam by stealth, by deceit and by force across the world. That same ideology has infused the culture of the Muslim world, its music, its heroes, its literature and its politics. A Muslim immigrant to the West carries it along with him, and if he does not, he is likely to become a member of a Wahhabi Mosque that does.

To ignore this and to remain silent about it, is to allow for the triumph of evil. There is no telling how many men and women remained silent as Nidal Hassan moved his way up through the ranks. There is no telling how many more Nidal Hassans there are in the military, in our schools and neighborhoods and all around the country. And the curtain of silence that surrounds them gives them ample room to plot and finally to act.

Silence on Islam kills. It kills because it turns every Muslim atrocity into a surprise attack that is quickly stifled, because Islam is the Cult of Death whose name we dare not speak. And as long as we dare not speak it, evil will triumph.

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

Sultan Knish - From NY To Israel Sultan Reveals The Stories Behind The News

Guatemalan police agent lynched
A group of neighbors in San Martin Jilotepeque, an indigenous community in western Guatemala, lynched an agent of the National Civil Police (PNC) whom they accused of extorting the driver of a public bus.  A spokesman for the PNC said the lynching happened this morning. 

The agent, 36, was captured by a mob of locals last night who accused him of extortion. 

He was disarmed by them and tied to a post, according to the spokesman, "and for several hours, subjected to blows and torture until this morning when he was doused with gasoline and burned alive."  A study by the humanitarian Mutual Help Group (GAM) in Guatemala showed that in the first nine months of 2009, 110 cases of attempted lynchings have occurred, 28 of them successful. 

These events are attributed to the insecurity caused by the lack of response by enforcement agencies.
--
Marihuana load stopped in Chile

Santiago de Chile.  Five people in a drug trafficking gang were arrested transporting 200 kilos of processed marihuana brought in from the Araucania region [central Chile].  The group, led by a Paraguayan, had smuggled the load into Chile from Argentina through a remote pass.
--
More info on the Tijuana tunnel
The four men arrested in connection with the tunnel project discovered in Tijuana, Baja California, last week [M3 Report 11/8/09] have been formally ordered held for 40 days while the investigation continues.  The construction of their 122-meter tunnel was less than half way to crossing under the border into the US near the western edge of the Tijuana International Airport.
-------
El Debate (Sinaloa) 11/16/09

Mexican Army scores again
The Mexican Army delivered another blow to narcotraffic by seizing a load of over 12 tons of marihuana and four vehicles - one, a large Kenworth truck - in the town of Choix, Sinaloa.  No arrests were reported. 

National Association Of Former Border Patrol Officers
 Visit our website: http://www.nafbpo.org

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) extracts and condenses the material that follows from Mexican and Central and South American on-line media sources on a daily basis.  

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced Nov. 13 that the U.S. Justice Department had decided to try five suspected terrorists currently being held at Guantanamo Bay in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, located in lower Manhattan. The five suspects - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi - are all accused of being involved in the 9/11 plot, with Mohammed describing himself as the mastermind in a 2003 confession.

The announcement follows from U.S. President Barack Obama's first executive order, which he signed on Jan. 22, to close the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and another executive order to suspend the military tribunals set up under the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists.

Holder's decision has generated much debate and highlighted the legal murkiness concerning the status of Guantanamo detainees and how best to bring them to justice.

Beyond this murkiness is the perceived security threat of bringing five suspected terrorists accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to trial in New York City. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said on CNN's "State of the Union" that he thought holding the trial in New York would put residents at risk. And Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, wrote in The New Republic that the trial will "create a public-safely nightmare for New York City." Numerous other observers and media outlets around the world have voiced similar security concerns about the New York trial.

Although there has been much criticism of the decision to hold the trial in New York City, when it comes to prosecuting terror suspects, the Southern District of New York knows what it's doing. The staff of the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York has gained considerable knowledge and expertise prosecuting terror cases over the years, just as the U.S. Marshals Service Special Operations Group (SOG) has gained much experience providing security for those trials. It was in the Southern District of New York in 1995 that Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the Blind Sheikh, was tried for the so-called Landmarks Plot of 1993 and received a life sentence.

In 1996, Abdel Basit (aka Ramzi Yousef) and two co-conspirators were also tried in the Southern District and sentenced to life in prison for their roles in the Bojinka Plot, which also included an indictment for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the staff of the Southern District has been familiar with Mohammed for some time now). The attackers behind the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies were also prosecuted in the Southern District of New York and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Few other courts have so much experience handling and prosecuting high-profile terrorism cases, so it should have come as no surprise that Holder named the district as the venue for the upcoming trial. On top of all this, the World Trade Center towers were also in the Southern District of New York, putting the deadliest site of the 9/11 attacks under the Southern District's jurisdiction.

The case will be prosecuted jointly by the offices of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, led by Preet Bharara, and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, led by Neil H. MacBride. The Eastern District of Virginia has also successfully prosecuted several terrorism cases, including those of John Walker Lindh in 2002, the Virginia Jihad Network in 2005 and Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006.

While some believe that trying the so-called "Gitmo Five" in New York City will result in more terrorist attacks in the city, STRATFOR does not anticipate a marked increase in the number of plots or attacks. New York City has long been a popular target for radical Islamists - there have been nine known plots involving targets in New York uncovered since the 9/11 attacks, including two in the past six months.

In May 2009, four men were arrested for attempting to detonate explosives outside a synagogue in the Bronx, and in September, Najibullah Zazi was arrested for plotting to detonate backpack explosives on trains in New York City. Other plots have included a 2007 plan to detonate fuel tanks at John F. Kennedy International Airport, a 2006 plot to detonate explosives in the Holland Tunnel and a 2004 plot to attack a subway station near Madison Square Garden.

New York City remains an alluring target for jihadists because of its symbolism. Home to more than 8 million people, it is the largest city in the United States and a global financial and media center. Whatever happens there gets more exposure and publicity than virtually anywhere else in the world. It is also a perceived center of Jewish wealth and culture (New York has the second-largest Jewish population behind Tel Aviv), compounding the threat from Islamist radicals.

New York City will remain a terrorist target for many reasons other than the Gitmo Five trial. It is also interesting to note that none of the city's other high-profile terrorism trials has ever resulted in a retaliatory attack against the city.

In addition to the federal prosecutors who will be involved in the trial having experience dealing with terrorism cases, the New York Police Department has the training, manpower and focus to provide effective physical security.

Federal agents, including those of the U.S. Marshals Service SOG, will be primarily responsible for handling the five suspects and providing security inside the federal courthouse. The building is one of the most secure federal courthouses in the country, equipped with anti-vehicle borne explosive device barricades, 24-hour guard posts and high-resolution video cameras.

The U.S. Marshals will be augmented by NYPD "Hercules" teams (designed to provide a surge of police presence in an area to prevent or disrupt criminal and terrorist operations) and will likely place sniper teams on nearby rooftops for added security. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic around the courthouse will be severely limited, with nearby streets closed to traffic and nearby subway entrances closed to riders.

During the trial, the five defendants will be held at the Metropolitan Correctional Complex, which is connected to the courthouse via a third-of-a-mile-long underground tunnel.

This significantly reduces the threat of terrorist attack or a disruption of the proceedings by allowing security forces to control the geography of the trial venue and spot unusual activity.

Another geographic benefit is the fact that Manhattan is an island with limited access points (bridges and tunnels), which makes it easier to seal off the area and control who or what gets in or out. These factors do not necessarily preclude an attack, especially a suicide attack in which the perpetrator is undeterred by the risk of death, but do decrease the options of an attacker and increase the options of law enforcement personnel in dealing with the potential risks.

Because the courthouse will be under such tight security, any attacker able to penetrate the island cordon and slip into the area would likely go after softer targets surrounding the building.

The NYPD will be responsible for protecting areas outside the courthouse and will probably create a secure buffer around the complex, the depth of which will depend on the severity of any given threat. Police would have the wherewithal to put whole sections of the city under heavy lockdown and provide a level of physical security designed to thwart terrorist activities that have reached the latter stages (deployment, attack and escape). This buffer would both protect softer targets nearby and make it that much harder for would-be attackers to infiltrate the courthouse. The NYPD also has the intelligence-collecting capabilities (informants, undercover officers, surveillants, analysts, etc.) to keep a close eye on any potential threat in the area leading up to and during the trial.

The NYPD developed these capabilities with a vengeance following the 9/11 attacks, and in the years since it has become quite adept at conducting preventative counterterrorism investigations rather than just reactive ones.

In addition to the NYPD, other first-responders in New York - the fire department, emergency medical services and transportation agencies - are experienced and well-trained in dealing with terrorist attacks and can support security efforts surrounding the trial. Given the 9/11 experience, Manhattan residents and workers are also well-versed in emergency action plans and preparations.

Certainly, the fact that such a high-profile trial will be held in New York City will temporarily add to the workload of federal and municipal security and emergency personnel, but in some ways it will be little more than a routine effort.

The city is used to high-profile events, regularly hosting such events as the U.N. General Assembly, with its attendant flow of international VIPs. New York City has been and will remain a prime terrorist target, and the people responsible for maintaining security in the city are very good at what they do. Indeed, Manhattan - given its recent history of civic trauma and intense focus on counterterrorism - may very well possess the safest civilian court in the country.

Totally Unbecoming of an American President
Embarrassing and Humiliating to the American People!!!

Will someone in Obama's Regime please take him aside and explain to him that the American President does not, repeat: does not ever, under any circumstances, BOW to another world leader -- at anytime or for any reason!

Obama's bowing in Japan is past embarrassing. This gives the impression that Obama is representing an America in a state of "submission" to the country to which he, Obama, is bowing!

I have lived through embarrassing presidential administrations before, a number of them: Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and now OBAMA. But, I have to tell you, the Obama regime is the worst for dragging America down and placing her in submission to other countries and organizations, such as the corrupt UN, and other "entities" we know nothing about -- yet.

Where are the shrinks when we need one? I want to hear a certified shrink tell me why Obama feels he must submit to any world leader on the globe let alone ALL OF THEM!!!

If there was ever a pathetic sight in the history of the world it was/is the President of the United States of America bowing, period. It matters not to whom he is bowing.

Yes, I have known since day one of the Presidential campaign, that Obama suffers from a massive inferiority complex. He wants, no, he NEEDS, to be loved BY EVERYONE! He craves that love and adoration so much that he is willing to crawl to the tattered and tarnished thrones of "has been" foreign powers and prostrate himself in a sign of total submission just to receive a moment's notice from them. Obama gives the impression he is begging scraps from their tables. His conduct in the presence of other world leaders is AWFUL, just AWFUL!

Obama's minions are trying to sell the American public the story that Obama was only observing protocol. Protocol my Aunt Fanny! There is NO SUCH PROTOCOL. None. Nowhere in the protocol handbook for the American President does it say an American President must bow to a foreign leader!

This is past embarrassing. This is into the "Realm of Unreality."

Ok, the bottom line: If the President wants to fly around the world and play some sort of "I submit" game then I want it clear, to all the leaders around the globe, that he, sure as heck, is NOT BOWING FOR ME and for the majority of Americans who find his antics embarrassing and humiliating -- and not a little insane!

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in "America First". and also  "The Carolina Post" .