THE GREAT OBAMA SWINDLE OF 2008by Raymond S. Kraft

PART ONE
OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN

I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the US Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States. He may even be an illegal alien, if he was born in Kenya and has never become a naturalized citizen.

My opinion. Why I am so sure?

I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I am convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama who, according to Jerome Corsi writing in World Net Daily, Obama's Birth Certificate Sealed by Hawaii Governor on October 26, 2008, has had the governor of Hawaii seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone. So far, he has refused to prove his qualification to be president. And by the behavior of Barack Obama, having his records sealed at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander in Chief.

In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.

Obama is tap dancing.

If I were Obama's lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity . I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.

But that's not what Obama and his lawyers are doing, they're filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on "technicalities," at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.

But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Commitee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:

1. If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a "natural born citizen," he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.

2. He hasn't, and it looks like he won't.

3. Therefore, we can only conclude that he can't, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the US. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama knows that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.

Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn't. Will he? Can he?


PART TWO
NO "STANDING" TO SUE?

In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.

This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life. And from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.

Let's do the analysis.

1. The US Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.

2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.

3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the US Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. Just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiares.

4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance, that a non-citizen, possibly an illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.

I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.


PART THREE
THE DUTY OF CONGRESS

Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."

Members of Congress take this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Having taken this oath, Senator Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.

Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to "support and defend" the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President.

And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to "protect and defend" the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama's birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.

So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Senator Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a "natural born citizen," or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4.

All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.


PART FOUR
THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY

If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a "natural born citizen," then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulentaly misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by "trick and device," to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.

My opinion.

Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Senator Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.

According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is Constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama's birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up - the cover up - of Obama's birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.

In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a "natural born citizen," then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama's campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath fo "support and defend" the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.

In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a "natural born citizen," that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America's Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.

Now, I could be wrong. I could be wrong about every opinion I have expressed here.

Senator Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.

Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen.

___________________________

Raymond S Kraft is a retired attorney in Northern California. He may be contacted at rskraft @ vfr.net.

GIVE A MUSLIM AN INCH

Syria, Lebanon, Iraq were once mostly Christian countries. Then one day they let in one Muslim.

Before it was Pakistan, the population that lived in that area were once mostly Hindu. Then one day they let in one Muslim.

Indonesians once practiced Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. Then one day they let in one Muslim and today it is the most populous Muslim country in the world.

The peoples of Malaysia before the 15th century could practice whatever they wanted, Buddhism, Hinduism, or their native Animism. Then one day they let in one Muslim and so today, if you are a native Malay, by Law you must be Muslim, there is no choice [Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia] if you want to remain a Malay citizen. Malays who convert out of Islam are no longer considered Malay under the law and lose their favored Bumiputra privileges.

So you may ask, 'What's the big deal' So you lose your citizenship, at least you are allowed to convert out of Islam.' But that's a joke too:

Western Resistance Blog, 24 Jan 2006, Malaysia: Muslim Court Allows Apostate To Be Buried As BuddhistThe case of people being classed as Muslims is complicated by the issue of apostasy. Cases where people have tried to leave Islam have to receive permission from an Islamic court, and such permission is universally denied. The Straits Times from Sept 20 2005 stated that a sharia court has never granted permission for a Malaysian Muslim to convert out of Islam.

You will find various travel websites that post Muslim Jokes like this: 'Malaysia's official religion is Islam, but the freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution.' Yes, it is true that if you are not a Malay you can practice whatever religion you like, with a few minor restrictions:

<>Do not marry a Muslim person in which case you are required to become a Muslim also.

<>If Christian, do not try to construct a new church.

<>You cannot talk to any Muslim about your religion; Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia expressly prohibits the propagation of any religion other than Islam to Muslims.

<>You can celebrate Christmas as long as you don't mention mention Jesus Christ.

<>If you are Hindu your temples will be destroyed: On October 30, 2007 the 100-year-old Maha Mariamman Temple in Padang Jawa was demolished by Malaysian authorities [Hindu American Foundation]. On April 21, 2006, the centuries old Malaimel Sri Selva Kaliamman Temple in Kuala Lumpur was reduced to rubble after the city government sent in bulldozers obstensibly because of a 'violation of construction laws' [Malaysiakini]. On May 11, 2006, armed city hall officers from Kuala Lumpur forcefully demolished part of a 90-year-old suburban temple that serves more than 3,000 Hindus [Financial Express].

But given the rules that once a Malay always a Muslim, that marrying a Muslim means you must convert also, that other religions are in fact discriminated against, that new churches or temples cannot be constructed and old ones are demolished, then it's only a matter of time before Malaysia becomes infested with 90% or more Muslims just as in:

Pakistan 97%
Bangladesh 90%
Egypt 90%
Turkey 99%
Iran 98%
Morocco 99%
Algeria 99%
Afghanistan 99%
Iraq 97%
Saudi Arabia 100%
Yemen 99%
Syria 90%
Niger 80-95%
Senegal 94-95%
Mali 90%
Tunisia 98%
Somalia 99.9%
Azerbaijan 93-96%
Tajikistan 97%
Libya 97%
Jordan 95%
Mauritania 99.98%
United Arab Emirates 96%
Oman 93%
Kosovo 90%
The Gambia 90%
Comoros 98%
Djibouti 94-99%
Western Sahara 99.8%
Maldives 99.8%
[from wiki]

Let one Muslim in and in a matter of years your country turns out to be 99.98% to 100% Muslim. Why is that?

Links worth your time

• UNCLE SAM SEZ
• BURKEAN REFLECTIONS
• WHEN EVIL PROSPERS
• RIGHT TRUTH!
• YANKEE COMMENTARY
• THE REDHUNTER~
• CARTOONS, C&F~
• FRONT PAGE MAG.
• DISCOVER THE NETWORKS
• WINFRED MANN
*If Your Blog (or organization) would like to Assist Our Ground Troopers in Winning the 'Hearts & Minds' of Iraqi citizens, tap this: Operation Iraqi Children

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org

The Wisest Mind Has Something Yet To Learn!

Editor's Note:

A Flood of Great Articles Keep Coming In From.... Dick Eckersall, Raymond S. Kraft, Dr. John Washburn, Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, etc and it's just too much for regular, open-forum 'comments' to handle. Sorry...we still love ya! And Next, This Mind-Snapper...'GIVE A MUSLIM AN INCH'! reb

Point of No Return

Point of No Return
Will we vote for the same soothing siren song as our enervated allies?

By Mark Steyn

Across the electric wires, the hum is ceaseless: Give it up, loser. Don’t go down with the ship when it’s swept away by the Obama tsunami. According to newspaper reports, polls show that most people believe newspaper reports claiming that most people believe polls showing that most people have read newspaper reports agreeing that polls show he’s going to win.

In the words of Publishers’ Clearing House, he may already have won! The battleground states have all turned blue, the reddest of red states are rapidly purpling. Don’t you know, little fool? You never can win. Use your mentality, wake up to reality. Why be the last right-wing pundit to sign up with Small-Government Conservatives For The Liberal Supermajority? We still need pages for the coronation, and there’s a pair of velvet knickerbockers with your name on it.

Yes, technically, this is still a two-party state, but one of the parties is like Elton John’s post-Oscar bash and the other is a church social in Wasilla. As David Sedaris put it in The New Yorker:

“I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. ‘Can I interest you in the chicken?’ she asks. ‘Or would you prefer the platter of s—t with bits of broken glass in it?’

“To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.”

Well, to be honest, I’ve never much cared for chicken.

McCain vs Obama is not the choice many of us would have liked in an ideal world. But then it’s not an “ideal world”, and the belief that it can be made so is one of the things that separates those who think Obama will “heal the planet” and those of us who support McCain faute de mieux. I agree with Thomas Sowell that an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark what he calls “a point of no return”. It would not be, as some naysayers scoff, “Jimmy Carter’s second term”, but something far more transformative. The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation — the first being FDR’s New Deal, the second LBJ’s Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obama’s patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of the last model: forty years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within.

All three liberal waves have transformed American expectations of the state. The spirit of the age is: Ask not what your country can do for you, demand it. Why can’t the government sort out my health care? Why can’t they pick up my mortgage?

In his first inaugural address, Calvin Coolidge said: “I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people.” That’s true in a more profound sense than he could have foreseen. In Europe, lavish social-democratic government has transformed citizens into eternal wards of the nanny state: the bureaucracy’s assumption of every adult responsibility has severed Continentals from the most basic survival impulse, to the point where unaffordable entitlements on shriveled birth rates have put a question mark over some of the oldest nation states on earth. A vote for an Obama-Pelosi-Barney Frank-ACORN supermajority is a vote for a Europeanized domestic policy that is, as the eco-types like to say, “unsustainable.”

More to the point, the only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?

“People of the world,” declared Senator Obama sonorously at his self-worship service in Germany, “look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

No, sorry. History proved no such thing. In the Cold War, the world did not stand as one. One half of Europe was a prison, and in the other half far too many people — the Barack Obamas of the day — were happy to go along with that division in perpetuity. And the wall came down not because “the world stood as one” but because a few courageous people stood against the conventional wisdom of the day. Had Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan been like Helmut Schmidt and Francois Mitterand and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter, the Soviet empire (notwithstanding its own incompetence) would have survived and the wall would still be standing. Senator Obama’s feeble passivity will get you a big round of applause precisely because it’s the easy option: Do nothing but hold hands and sing the easy listening anthems of one-worldism, and the planet will heal.

To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving “fetuses” of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – ie, the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex — voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely “present?”

The world rarely stands as one. You can, as Reagan and Thatcher did, stand up. Or, like Obama voting “present,” you can stand down.

Nobody denies that, in promoting himself from “community organizer” to the world’s President-designate in nothing flat, he has shown an amazing and impressively ruthless single-mindedness. But the path of personal glory has been, in terms of policy and philosophy, the path of least resistance.

Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the “Now what?” questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return,” the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice. But, if you don’t want it, vote accordingly.

Links worth your time

• UNCLE SAM SEZ


• BURKEAN REFLECTIONS


• WHEN EVIL PROSPERS


• RIGHT TRUTH!


• YANKEE COMMENTARY


• THE REDHUNTER~


• CARTOONS, C&F~


• FRONT PAGE MAG.


• DISCOVER THE NETWORKS


• WINFRED MANN


*If Your Blog (or organization) would like to Assist Our Ground Troopers in Winning the 'Hearts & Minds' of Iraqi citizens, tap this:

Operation Iraqi Children

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org

The Wisest Mind Has Something Yet To Learn!

Democracy Is Fragile

By Dr. John Washburn "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." This was said many years ago by a man named Tyler, and later repeated by Alexander Hamilton. I couldn’t agree more, which is the basis of my concern for America’s future. Our democracy has been in existence for nearly 233 years and I don’t recall in history any other democracy lasting that long. How exactly did the Roman empire fall? And when the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, the moderate members of the Russian parliament walked out in protest, prompting Trotsky to say this to them: "You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!" Sound familiar? Shortly thereafter, the Bolsheviks passed the Decree on Land, which ratified the actions of the peasants who had been seizing private land and redistributing it amongst themselves. In addition to this, the Bolsheviks: nationalized all banks, granted control of all factories to the soviets, confiscated private bank accounts, seized all church properties, fixed wages at higher rates and implemented a shorter 8-hour work day, repudiated all foreign debts. Indeed, I have seen a trend in the Democrat party for several decades, basically one of alienating the wealthy and pandering to the middle and lower class. I’ve heard some call this class warfare, and Barack Obama has taken it to an even higher level. This man’s campaign tactic, taken right from the writings of Saul Alinsky, is to cast away the 5% of America’s wealthiest and pander to the other 95%, literally promising them money for their votes. We hear things like “bottom up” growth and “fairness”. And it just may work. During the primaries, Obama did an interview and was asked about his tax policy. The questioner pointed out that past tax increases have often led to a DECREASE in government revenue. Obama acknowledged this to be true, yet when pressed about his tax plan he responded by saying that it was a matter of “fairness”. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx I have a deep problem with Obama’s perspective. In my mind, taxes are a necessary evil. I don’t believe in anarchy, so we must have a functioning government to provide things like courts, roads and national defense. This costs money and the citizens are responsible for providing that money. It’s simply the toll we pay for reaping the benefits of a free society. But Obama, and most democrats, take a much different approach. They see taxes as means of balancing society, establishing “fairness” whatever that means. They describe the rich as “fortunate” and the poor as “less fortunate” as though the only difference between the two is varying degrees of luck, and they use taxation to balance the good and bad luck as a matter of fairness. In other words, taxation is the government’s way of exerting control over its citizens, by punishing the upper class and giving to the middle and lower class, essentially redistributing wealth. But more than that, taxation is the democrat’s method of self-preservation, a means of achieving and maintaining power by nothing else than taking from the minority and giving to 95% of the citizens. You buy votes, implement programs that encourage government dependence, and in doing so you guarantee yourself power. The more citizens depend on the government, the less likely they are to vote you out, this is how communists keep power by ensuring the citizens need them in power. Cater to the middle and lower class, isolate the upper class because you don’t need their vote to gain power, and if that’s not enough then you literally promise the “less fortunate” money for putting you in power, thus the ability to vote themselves rewards from the treasury. It’s simple. And, folks, if Obama DOES win this election and he is given a super-majority in Congress with a filibuster-proof Senate and just one or two Obama Supreme Court choices – easily appointing the most radical of liberals with his rubber-stamp Senate - then exactly how close will we be to a dictatorship? In theory, they could pass any law they wanted. Honestly, who will stop the Dems from doing it? This makes me very uncomfortable. I believe Obama’s economy will be disastrous. The last time our economy was this bad was 1980, when Carter lost 10 million jobs, had a 21% interest rate and inflation was at a staggering 12%. Reagan stepped in and immediately dropped taxes to the floor. The top rate was cut from 70% to 28%. As a result, 20 million jobs were created, and government revenues doubled. This is historical fact, yet Obama claims that trickle down economics doesn’t work. Obama plans to do the exact opposite. His plan couldn’t be any further from Reagan’s and instead represents a hybrid of Carter and Hoover. Remember, it was Hoover’s policy that turned the recession of 1929 into the decade-long Great Depression by minimizing free trade and raising income taxes. Obama’s plan is dangerous, and McCain is committing campaign malpractice by not hammering home this issue enough. You NEVER raise taxes in the midst of a recession. NEVER! He calls for a “new” new deal, which makes sense considering his basic beliefs. The New Deal was our first brush with socialism as the government basically began acting as a major employer, attempting to replace the private sector, which had been choked by excessive taxation. It was very costly and, more importantly, it didn’t work. The Depression continued until the industrial boom of world war two revitalized the economy. Obama’s tax plan will no doubt increase unemployment, hitting small businesses especially hard. He says only 5% of small businesses will be affected, but this is not the whole story. The truth is 50% of small businesses who employ 20 or more people will see an increase in taxation. These are America’s major employers. And I just don’t get the “bottom up” theory. How exactly does the economy grow bottom up? The economy grows through employment, and a $1000 check doesn’t get you employed. In fact, it will probably not even pay one month of credit card bills. If people are employed, they have money to spend. If they have money to spend, then investments increase, especially if capitol gains rates are low; retail sales increase; borrowing and major purchases increase; and all of this ultimately leads to more business growth and more employment. There’s a reason why immigration became such a major issue and it’s because our economy was so strong that we actually had to import workers to fill the need. And business taxes are passed to consumers. Let’s be clear about this, businesses DON’T PAY TAXES, they simply pass the cost to the consumer. As a result, the cost of living goes up, investments decrease and the economy staggers. You can write checks to the middle and lower class, but those will quickly be consumed by the higher cost of living and does nothing to create jobs. This was tried just this summer when we all got rebate checks, and it amounted to nothing more than a speed bump in the economic decline. Bottom-up economics is unsound. It just doesn’t make sense. If you want to grow the economy it starts by growing business since they are the ones who employ people. Instead, it is the businesses and corporations – the “petite bourgeoise” - that are demonized by the Left in their class warfare tactics as they maintain efforts to appeal to the middle and lower class. And one sector of the economy that continues to thrive is exports. The US is still the world’s largest exporter, accounting for $1.3 trillion annually or 20% of our GDP. This has come mainly through free trade, which has also resulted in a net GAIN of US jobs despite the dem’s claim to the contrary. Obama wants to limit free trade in the name of keeping jobs from going overseas. Again, this is nothing but pandering to key swing states hit hardest by some of the negatives of free trade, despite the fact that free trade is overall beneficial for the whole country. If trade is affected, it could potentially affect 16 million US jobs that would be threatened by trade restrictions. This is on top of what could be lost by the taxation on small businesses. And this doesn’t take into account the fact that free trade increases the buying power of middle and lower class citizens, who can buy cheaper goods and make their dollars last longer. Restrict free trade and you raise the cost of everyday goods, on top of the cost of living that goes up with higher corporate taxation. When Hoover restricted trade by imposing a 40% tariff on imports, it led to a loss of 6.5 million jobs in his 4 year term, half of these were lost in his final year, and the GDP dropped by 25%. Obama is talking about doing much of the same. Our economy simply can’t handle it and if he has his way the recession of 2008 could quickly become the next great depression. And if this happens it will compel the Dems to enact more government programs, make more people dependent on their power. Again, McCain has failed to make this point clearly enough. Biden says Obama will be tested by an international crisis and that’s concerning enough, but still not nearly as concerning as what will happen to our economy. The signs of disaster couldn’t be any clearer. I wonder if the chaos on Wall Street is somehow related to his current position in the polls, and I fear that on Nov 5 if he’s declared the winner the market could plummet. His ideas are radical, hardly those of a moderate democrat, and he has a radical as House Speaker and as Senate leader. Not a good combination when we are in dire need of economic growth. Mark my words, if he wins we’re looking at some very dark days ahead. posted by John Washburn @ 12:59 PM 6 comments links to this post -->

Judging A Man

OBAMA'S SPIRITUAL ADVISOR JEREMIAH WRIGHT
- Obama's Pastor for most of his adult life.
- Wright married the Obamas and baptized their children.
- Obama 'found religion' through Pastor Wright.
- Obama consulted with Pastor Wright before running for Senate.
- Obama prayed privately with Wright before announcing his presidential run.
- Wright said 'the U.S. brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own terrorism'.
- Wright called Israel an 'outlaw nation'.
- Wright supported movement in his church to divest from Israel to try to bankrupt the Jewish State.
- Wright said Israel's treatment of Palestinians is state sponsored terrorism.

OBAMA'S POLITICAL MENTOR BILL AYERS
- Obama's political career launched in his dining room at a meet and greet in 1995.
- Ayers and Obama served together for 4 years on the Board of the Woods Foundation.
- Ayers and Obama served together for 6 years on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
- Ayers donated to Obama's 2000 Congressional Campaign.
- Ayers belonged to a domestic terrorist organization known as the 'Weathermen'.
- Ayers blew up the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol Building and N.Y City Police headquarters.
- Ayers tried to murder the family of a Judge.
- Ayers was a 1020year fugitive from the law.
- Ayers said: 'Kill all rich people… Bring the Revolution home. Kill you parents'.

OBAMA'S GOOD BUDDY RASHID KHALIDI (MR. PLO) - Khalidi and Obama were professors at the University of Chicago.
- Khalidi is a friend and frequent dinner companion of Obama.
- Khalidi held a political fundraiser for Obama in 2000.
- Khalidi was a spokesman for PLO when it was a terrorist organization.
- in 2003, Obama threw Khalidi a farewell party before he left for Columbia University. At the party, Khalidi told the mostly Palestinian American crowd that Obama deserves their support and that 'You will not have a better senator under any circumstances'.
- Khalidi organized Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University.
- Khalidi praised Obama 'because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the 'Palestinian cause'.
- Khalidi praised Obama for 'saying he supports talks with Iran'.
- Khalidi has stated that Israel is not a democratic ally but rather an 'apartheid system in creation' and a destructive 'racist' state.


OBAMA'S BIGGEST CHEERLEADER
LOUIS FARRAKHAN
- Farrakhan recently called Obama 'the Messiah'.
- Obama's church awarded Farrakhan with the Dr. Jeremiah Wright Trumpeter Award for 'truly e pitomizing greatness'.
- Farrakhan called Judaism a 'gutter religion'.
- Farrakhan called Jews 'bloodsuckers'.
- Farrakhan called white people 'blue eyed devils'.
- Farrakhan said 'Jews cooperated with Hitler '.

OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST Jesse Jackson
Stated that under Obama, the most important change would occur in the Middle East, where 'decades of putting Israel's interests first' would end.
- Jackson recently stated that, a lthough 'Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades' remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Obama enters the White House.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Left By John Perazzo As evidenced by Barack Obama’s rise in the polls immediately following the financial collapse of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, few Americans understand that for many years Fannie and Freddie have been, first and foremost, tools of Democratic politicians, funders of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of a former Fannie CEO, the intimate “friends” and “family” of the Democratic Party’s left wing. Nor are most Americans aware that Fannie and Freddie, through their eponymous grant-making foundations, have funneled literally hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to a host of leftist groups and causes that work to promote Democratic agendas, causes, and policies. To set the record straight, it is worthwhile to examine the connections between Fannie, Freddie, and the Democratic Party. A full account of the recent financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must consider the role of the Clinton administration. As early as 1993, Clinton’s first year in office, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and Attorney General Janet Reno expressed dismay over reports that the rejection rate of black mortgage applicants nationwide was considerably higher than that of their white counterparts. In response, Reno warned that thenceforth “no bank” would be “immune” to an aggressive Justice Department campaign to punish such “discrimination” in the lending market. For emphasis, then-Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick pledged to work for the elimination of all racial disparities in mortgage lending rejection rates. A careful look at the facts revealed, however, that those disparities were not actually due to discrimination of any kind. Instead, they reflected the realities of borrowers’ credit-worthiness, as determined by such objective factors as credit history, debt burden, income, net worth, age, and education. But the political champions of “racial justice” in the Clinton White House were not interested in these facts. So instead of permitting this information to change their outlook on the issue of mortgage lending, they moved ahead with their crusade to inject new energy into the so-called Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which, according to President Clinton, had failed to live up to its potential as a vehicle for increasing minority homeownership. Thus began the government policy of forcing lenders, under threat of severe sanctions, to make subprime loans to high-risk borrowers who failed to meet traditional loan criteria. It was a policy guaranteed to create a crisis. The only question was when. Now that the crisis has arrived, Democratic finger-pointing has become the order of the day. Leading the charge, Barack Obama not only blames Republicans, but tacitly blames capitalism as a whole, referencing it by the pejorative code name of “trickle-down” economics. Yet, Obama makes no mention of the fact that the Bush administration exhorted Congress for years to set up an agency to regulate lending institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nor does he mention that John McCain demanded similar oversight, only to be rebuffed by Democrats like House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who continued to favor the issuance of the subprime loans that have now caused the mortgage market to collapse. Since the 1990s, indeed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in the Democratic Party’s hip pocket. From 1991 to 1998, for example, Fannie Mae was headed by James Johnson, a longtime aide to former Democratic vice president Walter Mondale. While dutifully following the Clinton administration’s aforementioned mandate, and thereby helping to run the mortgage lender into the ground, Johnson himself earned tens of millions of dollars in his Fannie Mae post, including $21 million in 1998 alone. Johnson made headlines this past summer when Barack Obama tapped him to chair his vice presidential selection committee. Johnson had to resign in disgrace from that position when it was revealed that he had taken at least five below-market real estate loans totaling more than $7 million from Countrywide Financial Corporation. Johnson’s successor as Fannie Mae’s head, Franklin Raines, had previously served as a budget director to President Bill Clinton. During his years at Fannie’s helm between 1999 and 2005, Raines, while continuing the ill-advised policies that ultimately would bankrupt the company, pocketed nearly $100 million in compensation before leaving under a cloud of scandal. It seems that Raines had manipulated profit-and-loss reports so as to enable himself and other senior executives to earn enormous bonuses on top of already-high salaries – in 2003 alone, Raines received $16.8 million in cash compensation – even as the financial empire he oversaw was imploding. Another Fannie Mae luminary was Jamie Gorelick, who served as vice chair of the mortgage lender from 1998 to 2003. Prior to that, she had been Janet Reno’s Deputy Attorney General during precisely those years when the Clinton Justice Department was aggressively compelling banks to make subprime loans to unworthy borrowers. That experience gave Gorelick valuable training for her future post at Fannie Mae, where she ultimately would increase her personal net worth by $26 million. While the foregoing Democrats collected obscene sums of cash as reward for their complicity in the subprime mortgage debacle, by no means were they the only beneficiaries of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money. Between 1989 and 2008, no fewer than 354 members of Congress received funds from Fannie and Freddie. Of those, 209 were Democrats who pulled in a combined $4.84 million. The leading recipient of Fannie/Freddie money was Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd, the Banking Committee Chairman who collected more than $165,000. Dodd opposed oversight of Fannie and Freddie and pushed hard for the continuance of subprime mortgage loans. In second place was Barack Obama, who, in just three years in the U.S. Senate, raked in $126,000. Third was Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, with $111,000. Republicans, too, deserve a measure of criticism. Some 143 of them received Fanny and Freddie funds totaling just under $3.02 million. Utah Republican Robert Bennett, a Senate veteran, led the GOP with $107,999 in total contributions from the mortgage giants. Two independents also took in over $28 thousand. As further evidence of the Democrats’ role in the credit crisis, consider Fannie Mae’s intimate relationship with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), which represents the far-left of the Democratic Party. At a 2005 ceremony, Fannie Mae’s interim CEO Daniel Mudd told the CBC (of which Barack Obama was a new member) how deeply he valued “the friendship and partnership between Fannie Mae and the Congressional Black Caucus.” Mudd referred to the CBC not only as “good friends to Fannie Mae and our mission,” but also as Fannie Mae’s “family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.” (For a video of Mudd’s remarks, click here.) Such ties represent merely the tip of the iceberg. To gain a fuller appreciation for just how closely the mortgage companies were allied with the Democratic Party and its surrogates, one might look at the grant-making arms of Fannie and Freddie — specifically, the Fannie Mae Foundation and the Freddie Mac Foundation. The former was established in 1968, the latter in 1991. Together, they hold combined assets exceeding $285 million, and each year they give tens of millions of dollars (nearly $89 million in 2006 alone) in grants to predominantly leftwing organizations that promote a host of pro-Democrat agendas. Among the groups supported by Fannie and Freddie are the American Civil Liberties Union; the NAACP and the National Urban League; left-wing financier the Tides Foundation; pro-illegal immigration groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, the National Immigration Forum, and the National Council of La Raza; pro-Democratic community activist groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for Community Change, and the Alliance for Justice; feminist organizations like National Organization for Women and the National Women’s Law Center; and former president Jimmy Carter’s Carter Center. A comprehensive list of liberal, leftist, and pro-Democratic Fannie and Freddie grantees would fill an entire book. During last week’s presidential debate, John McCain made a point of observing that Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats had long “defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing” and had blocked all efforts at reforming the now-notorious institutions. Obama parried the charge by insisting that American voters were “not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers.” Obama’s defensiveness is understandable. If Americans took the time to examine the issue, they would discover that much of the blame for the current crisis belongs to the Democratic Party.

By John Perazzo

As evidenced by Barack Obama’s rise in the polls immediately following the financial collapse of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, few Americans understand that for many years Fannie and Freddie have been, first and foremost, tools of Democratic politicians, funders of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of a former Fannie CEO, the intimate “friends” and “family” of the Democratic Party’s left wing.

Nor are most Americans aware that Fannie and Freddie, through their eponymous grant-making foundations, have funneled literally hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to a host of leftist groups and causes that work to promote Democratic agendas, causes, and policies. To set the record straight, it is worthwhile to examine the connections between Fannie, Freddie, and the Democratic Party.

A full account of the recent financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must consider the role of the Clinton administration. As early as 1993, Clinton’s first year in office, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and Attorney General Janet Reno expressed dismay over reports that the rejection rate of black mortgage applicants nationwide was considerably higher than that of their white counterparts. In response, Reno warned that thenceforth “no bank” would be “immune” to an aggressive Justice Department campaign to punish such “discrimination” in the lending market. For emphasis, then-Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick pledged to work for the elimination of all racial disparities in mortgage lending rejection rates.

A careful look at the facts revealed, however, that those disparities were not actually due to discrimination of any kind. Instead, they reflected the realities of borrowers’ credit-worthiness, as determined by such objective factors as credit history, debt burden, income, net worth, age, and education.

But the political champions of “racial justice” in the Clinton White House were not interested in these facts. So instead of permitting this information to change their outlook on the issue of mortgage lending, they moved ahead with their crusade to inject new energy into the so-called Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which, according to President Clinton, had failed to live up to its potential as a vehicle for increasing minority homeownership. Thus began the government policy of forcing lenders, under threat of severe sanctions, to make subprime loans to high-risk borrowers who failed to meet traditional loan criteria. It was a policy guaranteed to create a crisis. The only question was when.

Now that the crisis has arrived, Democratic finger-pointing has become the order of the day. Leading the charge, Barack Obama not only blames Republicans, but tacitly blames capitalism as a whole, referencing it by the pejorative code name of “trickle-down” economics. Yet, Obama makes no mention of the fact that the Bush administration exhorted Congress for years to set up an agency to regulate lending institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nor does he mention that John McCain demanded similar oversight, only to be rebuffed by Democrats like House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who continued to favor the issuance of the subprime loans that have now caused the mortgage market to collapse.

Since the 1990s, indeed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in the Democratic Party’s hip pocket. From 1991 to 1998, for example, Fannie Mae was headed by James Johnson, a longtime aide to former Democratic vice president Walter Mondale. While dutifully following the Clinton administration’s aforementioned mandate, and thereby helping to run the mortgage lender into the ground, Johnson himself earned tens of millions of dollars in his Fannie Mae post, including $21 million in 1998 alone. Johnson made headlines this past summer when Barack Obama tapped him to chair his vice presidential selection committee. Johnson had to resign in disgrace from that position when it was revealed that he had taken at least five below-market real estate loans totaling more than $7 million from Countrywide Financial Corporation.

Johnson’s successor as Fannie Mae’s head, Franklin Raines, had previously served as a budget director to President Bill Clinton. During his years at Fannie’s helm between 1999 and 2005, Raines, while continuing the ill-advised policies that ultimately would bankrupt the company, pocketed nearly $100 million in compensation before leaving under a cloud of scandal. It seems that Raines had manipulated profit-and-loss reports so as to enable himself and other senior executives to earn enormous bonuses on top of already-high salaries – in 2003 alone, Raines received $16.8 million in cash compensation – even as the financial empire he oversaw was imploding.

Another Fannie Mae luminary was Jamie Gorelick, who served as vice chair of the mortgage lender from 1998 to 2003. Prior to that, she had been Janet Reno’s Deputy Attorney General during precisely those years when the Clinton Justice Department was aggressively compelling banks to make subprime loans to unworthy borrowers. That experience gave Gorelick valuable training for her future post at Fannie Mae, where she ultimately would increase her personal net worth by $26 million.

While the foregoing Democrats collected obscene sums of cash as reward for their complicity in the subprime mortgage debacle, by no means were they the only beneficiaries of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money. Between 1989 and 2008, no fewer than 354 members of Congress received funds from Fannie and Freddie. Of those, 209 were Democrats who pulled in a combined $4.84 million. The leading recipient of Fannie/Freddie money was Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd, the Banking Committee Chairman who collected more than $165,000. Dodd opposed oversight of Fannie and Freddie and pushed hard for the continuance of subprime mortgage loans. In second place was Barack Obama, who, in just three years in the U.S. Senate, raked in $126,000. Third was Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, with $111,000.

Republicans, too, deserve a measure of criticism. Some 143 of them received Fanny and Freddie funds totaling just under $3.02 million. Utah Republican Robert Bennett, a Senate veteran, led the GOP with $107,999 in total contributions from the mortgage giants. Two independents also took in over $28 thousand.

As further evidence of the Democrats’ role in the credit crisis, consider Fannie Mae’s intimate relationship with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), which represents the far-left of the Democratic Party. At a 2005 ceremony, Fannie Mae’s interim CEO Daniel Mudd told the CBC (of which Barack Obama was a new member) how deeply he valued “the friendship and partnership between Fannie Mae and the Congressional Black Caucus.” Mudd referred to the CBC not only as “good friends to Fannie Mae and our mission,” but also as Fannie Mae’s “family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.” (For a video of Mudd’s remarks, click here.)

Such ties represent merely the tip of the iceberg. To gain a fuller appreciation for just how closely the mortgage companies were allied with the Democratic Party and its surrogates, one might look at the grant-making arms of Fannie and Freddie — specifically, the Fannie Mae Foundation and the Freddie Mac Foundation. The former was established in 1968, the latter in 1991. Together, they hold combined assets exceeding $285 million, and each year they give tens of millions of dollars (nearly $89 million in 2006 alone) in grants to predominantly leftwing organizations that promote a host of pro-Democrat agendas. Among the groups supported by Fannie and Freddie are the American Civil Liberties Union; the NAACP and the National Urban League; left-wing financier the Tides Foundation; pro-illegal immigration groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, the National Immigration Forum, and the National Council of La Raza; pro-Democratic community activist groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for Community Change, and the Alliance for Justice; feminist organizations like National Organization for Women and the National Women’s Law Center; and former president Jimmy Carter’s Carter Center. A comprehensive list of liberal, leftist, and pro-Democratic Fannie and Freddie grantees would fill an entire book.

During last week’s presidential debate, John McCain made a point of observing that Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats had long “defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing” and had blocked all efforts at reforming the now-notorious institutions. Obama parried the charge by insisting that American voters were “not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers.” Obama’s defensiveness is understandable. If Americans took the time to examine the issue, they would discover that much of the blame for the current crisis belongs to the Democratic Party.

Black Racists Recruitedto Guide the Jihad

Black Racists Recruited to Guide the Jihad By John Perazzo

Black Muslim lawyer Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour recently made news when it was revealed that he was a patron of Barack Obama and recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School in 1988. Back in the 1960s, al-Mansour, whose “slave name” was then Don Warden, was deeply involved in Bay Area racial politics as founder of a group called the African American Association. A close personal adviser to Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, al-Mansour helped the pair establish the Black Panther Party but later broke with them when they entered coalitions with white radical groups. After becoming a Muslim, al-Mansour found not only an ideological justification for his racism but also a political purpose. That was, in the words of a memorandum produced by the Muslim Brotherhood and seized by the FBI as part of its probe of the Holy Land Foundation, to “eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within.” Many black racists like al-Mansour are key figures in this “stealth” jihad, whose prime recruiting grounds are the U.S. prisons and mosques where inmates and worshippers alike are taught to embrace a radical Islam engaged in an apocalyptic battle against America. Al-Mansour met Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in the mid-1970s and formed a relationship that led to al-Mansour’s hiring as attorney to King Saud. He has since been an adviser to Saudi billionaires who fund the stealth jihad and spread Wahhabi extremism in America.

Other black racist Islamists play less glamorous but equally significant roles as Imams at major mosques in the U.S.; as chaplains in prisons and jails; and as radical figures who haunt American higher education by advising and speaking for organizations such as the Muslim Students Association (MSA) on campuses across the nation. Whatever audience they target, they speak a lingua franca of anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-American hatred—all in the name of Allah.

And why is it that black racists such as al-Mansour constitute a significant proportion of these hate mongers? In large part, it is because blacks have been specifically and aggressively targeted for recruitment by leaders of the worldwide jihad, just as they were targeted for recruitment by the Communist Party USA in the 1920s. Black grievance, combined with the evangelism of the Nation of Islam over the last seventy years, has established an audience for the ideology of hate.

The prison, as the last bastion of racism and racial separatism, has become a prime recruitment center for radical Islam. Al Qaeda training manuals found by U.S. troops in Afghanistan reveal that America’s black prisoners, who constitute nearly half of the nation’s two million inmates, are viewed by terrorists as a potentially bountiful source of new jihadi recruits. The immensely wealthy Saudi government, which has made the propagation of radical Islam in America a top priority, has shipped tens of thousands of copies of the Koran to U.S. jails in recent years. Through the National Islamic Prison Foundation, Saudi money finances an extensive “prison outreach” program that seeks to convert inmates to Islam and to anti-Americanism. Prison chaplains are typically Wahhabis (practitioners of Saudi Arabia’s most extreme, fundamentalist form of Islam) who have been certified and trained as religious officials by either the Islamic Society of North America or the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, both of which are currently under federal investigation for ties to terrorism. Islam expert Stephen Schwartz states that “radical Muslim chaplains … acting in coordination to impose an extremist agenda … have gained a monopoly over Islamic religious activities in American state, federal, and city prisons and jails.” Some 135,000 inmates convert to Islam annually, and almost all of these converts are African Americans.

Focusing their efforts and fortunes not only on prisons, the Saudis also have spent many millions of dollars funding a majority of America’s mosques, and have dispatched Imams from a number of Middle Eastern nations to settle in the U.S. as missionaries. Faheem Shuaibe, an Imam at a predominately black mosque in California, says that Saudi Arabia has set up “a very deliberate recruitment process … trying to find black Muslims who had a real potential for Islamic learning and also for submission to their agenda” of Wahhabi extremism. According to Islam scholar Daniel Pipes, there are approximately “a million American-born converts to Islam (and their descendants) in the United States and most of them have shifted allegiances away from their native country.” Pakistani religious leaders Sami ul-Haq and Fazrul Rehman predict that “in the next 10 years, Americans will wake up to the existence of an Islamic army in their midst—an army of jihadis who will force America to abandon imperialism and listen to the voice of Allah.”

The racial composition of this jihadi army is, of course, influenced by the Saudi targeting of African Americans. According to Reza Safa, an authority on Wahhabism’s spread throughout the world, “as many as 90 percent of American converts to Islam are black.”

The somewhat shadowy Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour embodies the marriage of racism and Islamism that characterizes the stealth jihad. Using his legal training to leverage his standing in the Islamic world, al-Mansour is a black nationalist and an outspoken hater of the United States, Israel, and white people generally. In recent years he has accused the U.S. of plotting a “genocide” designed “to remove 15 million black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value or benefit to the American society.” He has told fellow blacks that “whatever you do to [white people], they deserve it, God wants you to do it and that’s when you cut out the nose, cut out the ears, take flesh out of their body, don’t worry because God wants you to do it.” Alleging further that Palestinians in Israel “are being brutalized like savages,” he accuses the Jews of “stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America.”

Other black racists who echo al-Mansour’s ideas include Imam Abdul Alim Musa, founder and director of the As-Sabiqun movement, which aims to “enable Islam to take complete control of … the lives of all human beings on Earth.” In 2004 the San Francisco Bay View described Musa as “one of the highest-ranking Islamic leaders in the Black community, nationwide and specifically in the Islamic movement.” Born in Arkansas as Clarence Reams, Musa was raised in Oakland, California. During the 1960s, he embraced the violent ideology of the Black Panthers. He went on to become a leading cocaine-exporter in Colombia, a crime for which he eventually was incarcerated. While in prison, he converted to Islam and took his present name. An avid supporter of Iran’s lateAyatollah Khomeini, Musa calls for Islam to “take over America.”

He praises Muslim suicide bombers as “heroes” who courageously “strike at the heart of Zionism.” He predictsthat “this way of life known as Islam will dominate all other ways of life.” He lauds those who seek to honor Allah by means of violence. He says that America holds values and attitudes consistent with those of the Ku Klux Klan. He has praised Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Hamas. And he holds that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated jointly by the U.S. and Israeli governments in order to provide a pretext for waging war against Islam.

Warith Deen Umar (formerly Wallace Gene Marks), who was repeatedly incarcerated as a teenager, is a retired Muslim cleric who spent two decades helping to run New York’s Islamic prison program. A confidante of Nation of Islam kingpin Louis Farrakhan, Umarpersonally recruited and trained dozens of chaplains. With help from the Saudi government, he brought that country’s fanatical brand of Islam to New York’s Muslim inmates. Hebelieves that the 9/11 hijackers should be honored as martyrs, and that the U.S. risks further terrorist attacks because it oppresses Muslims around the world. Viewing black prisoners as potential soldiers in such attacks, Umar says, “Prisons are a powder keg. The question is the ignition.” He wrote in an unplublished memoir, “Even Muslims who say they are against terrorism secretly admire and applaud” the hijackers. The Koran, he added, does not condemn terrorism against oppressors of Muslims, even if innocent people are killed in the process. “This is the sort of teaching they don’t want in prison,” he said. “But this is what I’m doing.”

Sheikh Khalid Yasin is a U.S.-born, Atlanta-based Muslim convert (and a Malcolm X disciple) who has been a popular guest speaker at Muslim Students Association (MSA) events across the United States. He candidly states that America one day will be governed by Sharia (Islamic Law); that Muslims should steadfastly refuse to become friends with non-Muslims; that 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. and/or Israel; that homosexuals should be killed in accordance with Koranic mandates; and that AIDS was invented at a U.S. government lab for the purpose of killing nonwhites around the world.

Former Nation of Islam member Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali is a black Imam in Oakland who also has become a familiar figure on U.S. campuses where he speaks for the MSA. A passionate supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, he endorses suicide bombings as a legitimate “resistance” tactic of Muslim “martyrs.” He calls for “an Islamic revolution” that will lead to the creation of “an Islamic state” where “Allah controls every place—the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress.” He maintains that “the Zionist Jews” were responsible for the Danish cartoon controversy that sparked Muslim riots around the world in 2006. He accuses the “apartheid State of Israel” of carrying out a “holocaust” and a “genocide” against the Palestinian people. Referring to Jews as “new Nazis” and “a bunch of straight-up punks,” he warns Jews: “[Y]our days are numbered…. We will fight you until we are either martyred or until we are victorious.”

Such are the commitments of the figures who have become the spearpoint of the Islamic jihad in America. Moving out from the hidden corners of American society into universities and other public places, these preachers of hate have made racism and Islamism into a potent toxin that they release under the cover of diversity and religious pluralism.

OBAMA'S THOUGHT POLICE

Obama's Thought Police by Hans von Spakovsky

10/02/2008 The Obama campaign is demanding that the Justice Department bring criminal charges against a non-profit advocacy organization and one of its donors because they have the audacity to sponsor a television ad criticizing the close connection between Obama and unrepentant former terrorist William Ayers.

The campaign is also threatening the license of television stations; and is enlisting state law enforcement officials for partisan prosecutions, all for running political ads that Obama claims are misleading and false.

These actions should cause every American to ask, can Obama be trusted with the powers of the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission?

This is a man who wants to criminally and economically punish opponents for engaging in political speech that is the heart and soul of the First Amendment.

Obama’s attack is aimed at the American Issues Project and one of its donors for “knowing and willful” violations of the federal campaign finance law.

AIP sponsored an ad criticizing Obama’s judgment and character for associating with domestic terrorist William Ayers, who participated in bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. The funds for this ad apparently came from billionaire Harold Simmons, who, if he wanted to, could spend as much of his own money independently as he wants to criticize Barack Obama. To Obama’s obvious chagrin, the First Amendment still prevents the campaign reformers from limiting the independent political expenditures of individuals.

Yet if Simmons donates that same money to a nonprofit issues organization like AIP that has no connection to a candidate so it can make the same independent expenditure, he and the organization are supposedly engaging in criminal conduct under the applicable federal campaign finance law.

Obama’s campaign has also sent a letter to television stations demanding that they not air an ad produced by the National Rifle Association about Obama’s long anti-gun history because it is supposedly false and misleading. The campaign tells the stations that their failure to prevent the airing may be “probative of an underlying abdication of license responsibility,” a not very subtle threat to go after their licensing if they do not comply.

And in Missouri, a local television station is reporting that Obama’s campaign is organizing something called the Barack Obama Truth Squad. It is made up of local prosecutors and sheriffs who say they will target anyone who “lies” or runs a ‘misleading” TV ad about Obama during the presidential campaign. Of course, this has happened at the very same time that the Justice Department gave into demands from the political Left that no federal prosecutors be used as observers on Election Day because of claims they could “intimidate” voters. I guess “intimidation” of Obama’s political opponents is not a serious concern.

All of this tells us that Barack Obama sees nothing wrong with using the power of government to criminally prosecute his political opponents and to use the regulatory authority of federal agencies to threaten businesses to achieve political objectives -- such as winning an election.

Such prosecutions have happened before against American citizens for expressing their political opinions. In fact, the first case of this kind to come before the courts was the conviction of Luther Baldwin of New Jersey for wishing that a wad from the presidential saluting cannon would “hit [John] Adams in the ass.” It is clear that Obama does not like the political ads that have hit him in the ass.

There is no threat against television stations or a demand by Obama to criminally prosecute NARAL or other liberal organizations that are no different from AIP or the NRA except, of course, that they have spent millions of dollars for independent ads attacking John McCain and supporting Obama. This dichotomy provides a frightening example of just how partisan and politically-biased the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be under an Obama administration, criminally prosecuting political opponents while turning a blind eye to supporters like NARAL.

John Adams lost the 1800 election in part due to the revulsion that many Americans felt towards the Alien and Sedition Acts, a law that restricted their ability to engage in fundamental political speech and activity and that enabled government prosecutors to persecute political opponents.

We seem to have forgotten too much about the dangers of government suppression and regulation of political speech and political liberties. Not only is there no such revulsion in 2008, but instead we have “reform” organizations actually applauding Obama’s demands and calling for the Justice Department to fire the head of its Election Crimes Branch for saying publicly that he is not going to initiate a criminal prosecution of organizations like AIP.

Too bad there probably will not be a similar reaction by American voters as there was in the election of 1800 to a candidate’s support for government persecution of his political opponents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans von Spakovsky is a former member of the Federal Election Commission and a former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------