Thursday, July 31, 2008

38 Obama Falsehoods the Media Ignores

the below is from a post at NO COMPROMISE BLOG:

Also be sure to listen to No Compromise Blogtalk Radio:

38 Obama Falsehoods the Media Ignores
May 29, 2008

By Michael Ashbury
May 28, 2008

1.)”Selma Got Me Born” - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
(Google’Obama Selma‘ for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga’s
follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that….and for more. Obama’s cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians’ homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side. While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya, his father’s family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even
states he’s Arab, not African Negro). From….and for more….go to….. ( Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-)_
( Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-)
American,_only_6.25%25_African<_ ml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab American,_only_6.25%25_African>

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at
school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office. 4-3-08 Article ‘Obama was ‘quite religious in islam”


8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were
registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check his own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’ This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says ‘Obama’s narrative is being
altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.’

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Voting ‘Present’ is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misquoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misquote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ONLEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didnít write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.

30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.

31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself.

33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

34.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.

35.) I don’t Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq war decision - NOT EXACTLY, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.

United American Committee confronts "subway jihad" in NYC

UAC confronts 'subway jihad' in New York City

An array of respectable American organizations lead by the New York chapter of the United American Committee are standing up against a New York City subway advertisement campaign being promoted by known supporters of Islamic terror.

(NEW YORK, NY – 7/31/2008) – What started out as a campaign disguised as promoting dialogue between people of different faiths according to its sponsors, may actually be a promotion for Islamic terror according to groups confronting this highly questionable campaign. The “Why Islam?” campaign, dubbed “Subway jihad” by its opponents, entails a series of advertisements in New York subway cars promoting the Islamic ideology. Concerns arose when radical Imam Siraj Wahhaj, unindicted co conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, came out as a promoter of the project. "In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam," Wahhaj is noted as stating in one of his regular sermons, causing an uproar from Americans all across the nation. Yet Wahhaj continues to issue sermons and statements on a regular bases that are shocking and gravely concerning to many. “Why has the Muslim community not denounced this man? Instead he is being recruited to promote campaigns such as the subway advertisements.” remarked Pamela Hall, Chairwoman of the New York chapter of the United American Committee. “ This is deeply concerning.” Hall continued.

A variation of 3 Islamic advertisements will appear in 1,000 of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s 6,200 subway cars according to a statement by the campaign's organizers. This latest campaign comes as no surprise to veteran groups such as the United American Committee and others involved in the anti-jihad resistance confronting this campaign such as the Stop the Madrassa Coalition, who all have a focus on tackling issues pertaining to Islamic radicalism. “They will use any resource necessary to fight their jihad against America, be they bullets or through non-violent means such as this.” remarked U.A.C. Vice Chairman Jim Horn when questioned about the advertisement campaign.

The anti-jihad groups are urging all concerned citizens across the nation to contact New York city, state and federal representatives, as well as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to express their concerns over the advertisements.

More information on this and other anti-jihad resistance activities can be found at or

Love, blackmail and rape - How al-Qaeda groomswomen as perfect weapons

Thanks for the heads-up on this story posted at ACT! for, from Isabelle's Corner - One of her top picks for July 29.

From the Times on Line at

July 30, 2008
Love, blackmail and rape – how al-Qaeda grooms women as ‘perfect weapons’ (OR HOW WOMEN ARE EQUAL TO MEN IN ISLAM) Deborah Haynes in Baladruz, Diyala

Read Deborah Haynes's blog: Inside Iraq:

A woman pretending to be pregnant walks up to a hospital in one of Iraq’s most dangerous regions and blows herself up.

Minutes later a man, also laden with explosives, attacks the rescue workers who rushed to the scene in Diyala province, north of Baghdad. Thirty-two people are killed and 52 wounded.

The co-ordinated bombings that ripped through the town of Baladruz in May are one of twelve attacks involving thirteen women suicide bombers to strike Diyala so far this year – a huge jump, signalling a new tactic by insurgents. US officials suspect that al-Qaeda has built a network of cells that recruit women and turn them into killers.

Women are the perfect weapon in a country where it is frowned upon culturally for a man even to approach a woman without her husband or father in tow, let alone frisk her for weapons at one of the many checkpoints that are the bombers’ favourite targets. In addition, it is easy to hide a vest packed with explosives under the traditional Islamic robes worn by women in Iraq without drawing suspicion.

In total, there have been 24 attacks involving women suicide bombers since January, including four on Monday in Baghdad and the northern city of Kirkuk that left scores dead. Al-Qaeda is “a very adaptive enemy”, a US Special Forces captain based in Diyala said. “They will try to use whatever works best for them to attempt to exploit whatever political or cultural restrictions we have.”

In the past, al-Qaeda fighters have used mosques to hold meetings and hide weapons, knowing that the US military will not raid religious buildings. “Now they’ve adapted to try to use female suicide bombers.”

The military believes that al-Qaeda employs a variety of tactics to get women to become suicide bombers. Some are easy prey because their husband or children have been killed or detained by US forces, said Captain Matthew Shown, the intelligence officer for “Sabre Squadron”, 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, which is based in southeast Diyala.

Another method is for a member of al-Qaeda to marry a woman and then dishonour her in some way, such as letting someone else rape her. “This would leave her with no choice but to end her life,” Captain Shown, 34, said.

There are also reports of women being told that their husband or child will be killed unless they agree to become suicide bombers.


Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Call Congressman Brad Sherman TODAY

ACTION ALERT! Time Sensitive
Call Congressman Brad Sherman today

DO NOT ALLOW MPAC & ISNA to silence testimony on terrorism. Please read the alerts below demonstrating the efforts of ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council to prevent such testimony. Pre-empt its effort. Please call Congressman Brad Sherman by phone or fax, thanking him for inviting Steve Emerson to testify; he is one of the most knowledgeable experts in terrorism and one of our most important voices against terrorist proliferation. This is yet another example of how Islamist groups like MPAC & ISNA are trying to silence and undermine anyone who dares to speak out against terrorism in this country by attacking their credibility and accusing them of "Islamaphobia."

Washington, D.C. Office
2242 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515-0524
Phone: (202) 225-5911
FAX: (202) 225-5879

San Fernando Valley Office
5000 Van Nuys Blvd. Suite 420
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 501-9200
FAX: (818) 501-1554

From ISNA AND MPAC: Read their email below sent to their members and ACT today!


Islamic Society of North America
Self proclaimed terrorist expert Steven Emerson is scheduled to testify this Thursday, July 31st, in a congressional hearing entitled "Foreign Aid and the Fight Against Terrorism and Proliferation: Leveraging Foreign Aid to Achieve U.S. Policy Goals." Emerson has a formidable history of attacking Islam and Muslims in America under the guise of his alleged expertise. Those familiar with Emerson's legacy state his lack of credentials in foreign aid and foreign policy and are concerned that his testimony will feed Islamaphobia.

The Islamic Society of North America encourages it members and all Americans to contact Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), chairman of the "House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade", convener of the panel, and request that balanced, qualified testimony be included in the panel or the session be canceled. ISNA is concerned that Emerson's hate mongering will deter responsible policy making, impede effective security, and detrimentally affect American Muslims.

Contact Congressman Brad Sherman by phone or fax now before Thursday's session.
Washington, D.C. Office
2242 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515-0524
Phone: (202) 225-5911
FAX: (202) 225-5879

San Fernando Valley Office
5000 Van Nuys Blvd. Suite 420
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 501-9200
FAX: (818) 501-1554

MPAC Demands Congressman Sherman Ensure Credible Testimony or Postpone Hearing

July 29, 2008 Muslim Public Affairs Committee

Today, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) released a letter urging Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) to either provide credible experts at an upcoming hearing on foreign aid, or postpone the hearing until credible experts can be found.

SEE: Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Hearing Information (U.S. House of Representatives, 7/28/08)

Congressman Brad Sherman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, will call on self-proclaimed "terrorism expert" Steven Emerson to testify at the congressional hearing. Emerson, who has a proven track record of anti-Muslim bigotry, is not a credible expert on foreign aid or foreign policy.

MPAC’s letter calls for the Congressman to "ensure that those who are relied upon for knowledge have the requisite expertise, experience, and nuanced outlook. In the interest of maintaining a good balance of views, we urge you to include an additional panelist from an NGO, university, or think-tank that can represent the positive role of civil society organizations in challenging terrorism. If, however, you cannot find any other witnesses that can balance the current witness panel, we request that you cancel or postpone panel until such time as the committee is able to convene an unbiased slate of witnesses."

"In the interest of effective and informed policy-making, it our sincere hope that the Congressman heeds this request and proceeds accordingly." said Salam Al-Marayati, MPAC Executive Director. "Misinformation could lead to disastrous initiatives, leading the U.S. further away from realizing its foreign policy objectives." Click here to read the letter in its entirety.


Contact Congressman Brad Sherman by phone or fax, let him know that he must either provide unbiased, qualified experts for this Thursday's hearing - or cancel the panel.

The Case Against Baraq Hussein Obama

The Case Against Barack (Hussein) Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate,by David Freddoso

Editorial Review from:

He's the media's darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barack Obama really stand for-and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country? That's what David Freddoso, investigative reporter and National Review Online columnist, examines in The Case Against Barack Obama. In this shocking exposé, Freddoso explores the reality behind the rhetoric, the plans behind the promises, and the faults behind the façade, revealing:

* Why Obama's inexperience and extreme left-wing voting record is more dangerous than any threat we face today;

* Why the Rev. Wright debacle reveals Obama's poor judgment of character and deceitful nature;

* Why it won't be politics of change with President Obama-it will be liberal politics as usual;

Freddoso exposes the real Barack Obama: a typical big-government politician, the #1 most liberal U.S. senator, and-if he were commander in chief-a serious threat to our national security.

Biography: David Freddoso has covered politics for six years and is a hard-hitting political reporter for National Review Online. Before working at NRO, Freddoso worked closely with legendary political journalist Bob Novak on the Evans and Novak Political Report, and worked as a reporter for the national news weekly, Human Events. He has a master's in journalism from Columbia University.

Monday, July 28, 2008


Support the Free Speech Protection Act - Urgent!

If free speech is important to you, if you believe that people like me, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Sean Hannity, Steve Emerson, Bob Spencer and others who write and expose vital information about the threat of Islamofacism to our liberty and freedoms should be protected to continue sounding the alarm, PLEASE copy and paste the letter below and send it to Members and staff on the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate (listed below). Identify yourself as a patriotic voter, and that you strongly request that they support the passage of the Free Speech Protection Act.

You can also enter your elected officials' phone numbers in your cell phone and call them while you are stuck in traffic and voice your opinion. Every email or phone call represents 1000 voters. Here is the science behind the numbers: If 40 people in each state contact their elected official about an issue, that number represents 40,000 voters on election day. That can make or break an election. This is why every phone call gets the elected official's attention.

Let's jam their lines and swamp their emails. Together we can make a difference!

Rising in defense of our security, our liberty and our values.

Thank you, Brigitte Gabriel


The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 ( S-2977 & H.R. 5814), was introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.), and a Senate companion bill by Senator Arlen Specter (R., PA) and Joseph Lieberman (I- CT), and co-sponsored by NY senior Senator Chuck Schumer. With Schumer on board, and others joining, the Free Speech Protection Act can be adopted before Congress adjourns this summer.

It’s important to take immediate measures to defend our ability to inform the public and protect our free speech rights - now under attack by Saudis using the British legal system. I can’t think of a more important and urgent law Congress and you can be proud of than the Free Speech Protection Act.

This legislation builds on New York State's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," aka "Rachel's Law.” The NY law, and the proposed federal legislation, grew from the court battles of New York journalist and terrorism investigator, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, whom a Saudi billionaire sued in Great Britain for Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - And How to Stop It—although she is American and her book sold here, not in the U.K. But plaintiff-friendly British libel laws have made London a Mecca for libel tourists wishing to intimidate authors worldwide.

The suit against Dr. Ehrenfeld–like 40 previous cases that silenced many other American and New York authors–is an obvious attempt to dilute First Amendment protections of free press, and prevent investigations of terror-financing.

The British Guardian wrote on July 15, “English libel law is an international menace, a national disgrace, a pre-democratic anachronism. It defends crooks, terrorists and tyrants from investigation. It threatens the free speech of people all over the world and causes untold damage to the reputation of this country.”

In a tremendous victory for free speech rights and to provide legal protections from "libel terrorism" to New York authors and publishers, the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, aka "Rachel's Law," was adopted unanimously—in less than 3 months(!) by the NY legislature and signed into law by Gov. David Patterson on April 30, 2008.

Pat Schroder, President of the Association of American publishers stated: “We’ve supported Rachel Ehrenfeld in her court battles....Now we’d like to see the fight taken to another level with enactment of federal legislation.”

Senators Specter and Lieberman note that the English Libel Laws threaten the "free-flowing marketplace of ideas" which "enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations." Free speech in the U.S. “is under sharp attack through foreign courts, where dozens of mendacious libel suits have intimidated and silenced American authors and U.S. publishers.”

“The new legislation would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information. It would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards,“ wrote Senators Specter and Lieberman. The new Free Speech Act bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award damages.

PLEASE, Help vote the Free Speech Act into Law. American Writers need it to be able to unearth the truth, and publish it without any censorship by foreign courts.



Below is contact information for the Senatorial Judiciary Committee, the Congressional Judiciary Committee, and Staff.

General Judiciary Committee -

Staff Majority Communications Director Jonathan Godfrey - (202) 225-3951

Majority Press Secretary/Spokesperson Melanie Roussell - (202) 225-3951

Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel Perry Apelbaum - (202) 225-3951

Minority Chief of Staff/General Counselor - (202) 226-0002

Minority Communications Director Kim Smith - (202) 225-6906

Senators on Committee

NY Charles Schumer -
Press Secretary Brian Fallon - (202) 224-7433

VT Patrick J. Leahy -
Press Secretary Erica Chabot - (202) 224-2154

MA Edward Kennedy -
Press Secretary Melissa Wagoner - (202) 224-2633

DE Joseph Biden -
Press Secretary Elizabeth Alexander - (202) 224-2154

WI Herbert Kohl -
Press Secretary Lynn Becker - (202) 224-2240

WI Russ Feingold -
Press Secretary Zach Lowe - (202) 224-8657

CA Dianne Feinstein -
Press Secretary Scott Gerber - (202) 224-8657

IL Richard Durbin -
Press Secretary Joe Shoemaker - (202) 224-7028

MD Benjamin Cardin -
Press Secretary Sue Walitsky - (202) 224-7433

RI Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -
Press Secretary Alex Swartsel - (202) 224-7433

PA Arlen Specter -
Press Secretary Chris Gindlesperger - (202) 224-5225

UT Orrin Hatch -
Press Secretary Mark Eddington (202) 224-5251
IA Charles Grassley -
Press Secretary Beth Levine - (202) 224-6197

AZ Jon Kyl -
Press Secretary Andrew Wilder - (202) 224-4521

AL Jeff Sessions -
Press Secretary Michael Brumas - (202) 224-4124

SC Lindsey Graham -
Press Secretary Wes Hickman - (202) 224-5972

TX John Cornyn -
Press Secretary Brian Walsh - (202) 224-2934

KS Sam Brownback -
Press Secretary John Rankin - (202) 224-6521

OK Tom Coburn -
Press Secretary John Hart - (202) 224-5754

Congressional Representatives

NY-9th Anthony Weiner -

NY-8th Jerrold Nadler – Tel: 202-225-5635

CA-24th Elton Gallegly -

CA-3rd Dan Lungren -

CA-29th Adam Schiff -

CA-28th Howard Berman -

CA-16th Zoe Lofgren -

CA-35th Maxine Waters -

CA-39th Linda Sanchez -

CA-27th Brad Sherman -

CA-49th Darrell Issa -

MI 14th John Conyers (Chair) -

VA-9th Rick Boucher -

VA-3rd Bobby Scott –

VA-6th Bob Goodlatte -

VA-4th Randy Forbes -

NC-12th Rep. Melvin Watt -

MA-10th William Delahunt -

FL-8th Ric Keller -

FL-24th Tom Feeney -

FL-20th Debbie Wasserman Schultz -

FL-19th Robert Wexler -

TN-9th Stephen Cohen -

GA-4th Hank Johnson -

OH-13th Betty Sutton -

IL-4th Luis Gutierrez -

WI-2nd Tammy Baldwin -

AL-7th Artur Davis -

MN-5th Keith Ellison -

TX-21st Lamar S. Smith (Ranking Member) -

TX-18th Sheila Jackson Lee -

TX-1st Louie Gohmert -

WI-5th F. James Sensenbrenner -

NC-6th Howard Coble -

UT-3rd Chris Cannon -

IN-6th Mike Pence -

IA-5th Steve King –

AZ-2nd Trent Franks -

OH-4th Jim Jordan -

OH-1st Steve Chabot -

Women Homicide Bombers in Iraq

In this case, women ARE equal to men in Islam! FOUR WOMEN HOMICIDE BOMBERS, bla, bla, bla

By SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Four suicide bombers believed (because who can tell who they are under those lovely tents?)to be women struck a Shiite pilgrimage in Baghdad and a Kurdish protest rally in northern Iraq on Monday, killing at least 57 people and wounding nearly 300 in one of this year's deadliest attacks, police said.

The U.S. military is recruiting and training women in Iraq's police force, and trying to enlist them to join U.S.-allied Sunni groups fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq. But such attacks are becoming increasingly common, even as overall violence is at the lowest level in four years.

Women are more easily able to hide explosives under their all-encompassing black Islamic robes, or abayas, and often are not searched at checkpoints because of sensitivities. (Why do you think the big push is on globally for Muslim women to wear these signs of oppression and slavery? It's just another step in the road to: see paragraph #1)

On Monday, three bombers believed to be women blew up their explosive vests in the middle of pilgrims in Baghdad moments after a roadside bomb attack, killing at least 32 people and wounding 102, Iraqi officials said. (Thereby saving the Taliban a couple of bullets when they get a hair up their arses to do some target practice using women as their targest, the bastards!)

In the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk, 25 people were killed and 185 wounded when a blast tore through a crowd of Kurds protesting a draft provincial elections law, officials said. (ahhhh, yes, ain't democrary working great for these folks!)

Police spokesman Brig. Gen. Burhan Tayeb Taha said the Kirkuk bomber was also a woman, and that he had seen her remains at the site. The U.S. military confirmed a (HOMICIDE) suicide bombing but said it had no indication the attacker was a woman.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, condemned the attacks.

"The targets of these vicious and cowardly attacks were innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who were freely practicing their democratic rights and religious faith," their joint statement said. "It is crucial that the Iraqi people remain united and steadfast in the face of those terrorists who would use violence to destroy a free Iraq and set back the progress for which so many have so bravely sacrificed."

Authorities clamped a 3 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew on Kirkuk, which is home to Kurds, Turkomen, Arabs and smaller groups. In Baghdad, the Iraqi military command imposed a citywide vehicle and motorcycle ban from 5 a.m. Tuesday to 5 a.m. Wednesday.

Iraqi security forces deployed about 200 women this week to search female pilgrims during a procession toward the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Kazimiyah, where an 8th century Shiite saint is buried.

The pilgrims are marking the death of Imam Moussa al-Kadhim, a Shiite saint interred under a golden domed shrine. Monday's attacks took place in the mainly Shiite Karradah district, which is several miles away from the destination of the pilgrimage in Kazimiyah. Most of the dead were women and children, police and health officials said.

"I heard women and children crying and shouting, and I saw burned women and dead bodies lying in pools of blood on the street," Mustapha Abdullah, a 32-year-old man who was injured in the stomach and legs, said from the hospital where he was being treated.

It was the deadliest attack in Baghdad in more than a month. On June 17, a truck bombing killed 63 people in Hurriyah, a neighborhood that saw some of the worst Shiite-Sunni slaughter in 2006.

In Kirkuk, the suicide bomber targeted Kurdish demonstrators who were protesting a provincial elections measure blocked in parliament because of disagreement over power sharing.

Maj. Gen. Jamal Tahir, a Kirkuk police spokesman, said police also found a car bomb nearby and detonated it safely.

After the explosion, dozens of angry Kurds opened fire on the offices of a Turkomen political party, which opposes Kurdish claims on Kirkuk.

A police official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said no one was hurt in that attack and that the party offices were placed under police protection.

Since the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni, Shiite political parties have encouraged huge turnouts at religious festivals to display the majority sect's power in Iraq. Sunni religious extremists have often targeted the gatherings to foment sectarian war, but that has not stopped the Shiites.

In 2005, at least 1,000 people also were killed in a bridge stampede caused by rumors of a suicide bomber in Baghdad during the Kazimiyah pilgrimage.


Associated Press writers Hamid Ahmed, Saad Abdul-Kadir and Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

A Berliner's View of the Fraud Baraq Hussein Obama

Hey Political/Obama fans --

No matter where your leanings are, I sincerely think you will gain some insight into what's going on with the campaigns and the media. The best is at the end.

I suppose most of you have seen articles like this one in your newspaper:

Sure you have -- but have you read of the free concert just before the speech? Read this link before we continue:

Here's what it says in a nutshell:

Remember back in May when media gushed and fawned over a huge crowd in Portland, Oregon -- supposedly gathered to hear the words of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama -- but chose not to report the free concert given before his speech?

Well, it has been learned that before the presumptive Democrat nominee spoke to a crowd in Berlin Thursday, two popular German acts -- reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn -- entertained the gathering audience.

Will media report this tonight, or just gush and fawn over the huge crowd again?

And now we move to the most interesting comments of all. I wrote a German friend -- a former Pan Am Maintenance Supervisor -- and asked him of his opinions and of the general feelings of the German people as he sees the situation. Here is his unedited reply to me -- A MOST INTERESTING READ!


It will be difficult to answer but I try.

The politicions and Media:
As he invited himself to come to Berlin and announced he will speak at the Brandenburg Gate, the politicions seemed astonished and did not know how to react. Our Chancelor Ms Merkel said he can come but not speech at the Gate only presidents who have something accomplished should speek at the gate, in addition she did not like a type of election campaign. Our socialist Party members including the Mayor of Berlin were thrilled and wellcomed the idea. Then with some pressure (from whom?) the campaign group looked at different places and decided to have the speech at the "Siegessaeule".

The Print and TV media did not express pro or con but elaborated on Obama. Then a day before arraival they got excited and and wrote about the whole event, i.e. his schedule, security measures and so on. He spoke at 19:00 our time and the people filled the street, approx 200000.

Now remember the Berliner's always gather together on events like this and we have around 12 000 US citicens living in Berlin and a lot came from Western Germany. Also we have a lot of jobless people and School recess, they always welcome something different.

I assume You did see the speech on CNN or Your local TV station.The Medias today are all hailing him as the worlds new messias who is dreaming of a new world ( who would not). But, there are other opinions that he acts already as the new President which he is not Yet.

What makes him so popular? He is a good speeker and is able to fascinate his audiance ( I seen something like this as I was a kid in the Thirtees).
Now what I think.

Its highly unusual that one invites himself to foreign soil to hold a speech at a specific location. I hope when he is in the US again the hype overhere will deminish. The vision he has is nice but what has he accomplished so far to believe he can do it. His live is a bit obscur and I'm a confused who he really is. Apparently he has the most campaign money ever collected, 300 million. Most of them via internet from Muslemic Countries ????

2 weeks ago recruits had pledged to serve our country.The main speeker was our former Chancelor Schmitt at age 89,in his speech he said " it easy to seduce people and will always be". He referred to Germanys past. Still true today.

I have a lot of contacts in the US and no-one!! is pro democratic candidate. That' says it all.

I'm attaching an email I recenly received. I think we could discuss for hours .

Thursday, July 24, 2008

A victory for Free Speech

July 23, 2008

Intel bill passes with Hoekstra amendment to ban funding to promote gov't guidance on "jihad"-free lexicon

Some good news, in an update on this story. "Michigan rep fights terrorism words ban," from UPI, July 23:

HOLLAND, Mich., July 23 (UPI) -- The intelligence bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives includes a ban on a new policy about which words officials should use to describe terrorists.

The new policy, contained in guidelines issued by the National Counter-Terrorism Center and the departments of State and Homeland Security), warns that that using terms like "Jihadi" or "Islamic terrorist," might alienate moderate Muslims and inadvertently build support for terrorists.

But an amendment to the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act passed last week bans the use of any government money to promote the guidance in U.S. intelligence agencies.

The amendment, authored by U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, [R]-Mich., was approved by a 249-180 vote. Fellow Republican Michigan Reps. Joe Knollenberg and Thaddeus McCotter supported the amendment, The Detroit News reported Wednesday, and 55 Democrats joined them, despite the opposition of the party leadership.

"I am sympathetic to the argument that if used inappropriately, the words can be counterproductive but I find that the people who are criticizing this are very short on alternatives," Hoekstra said. "So how do they want us to describe al-Qaida and what they are involved with?"

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations-Michigan said there were alternatives. "CAIR supports using terminology such as 'criminals,' 'murderers' or 'terrorists' that help isolate extremists and remove the false cloak of religiosity they use to justify their barbaric actions," he told the newspaper.

More importantly for CAIR, limiting the terminology in that manner disconnects actions from ideology so no one starts asking questions, particularly about notions like the "false cloak of religiosity."


Monday, July 21, 2008

Jamia Binoria Madrassa

This is a follow up to the internet story of The Karachi Kids, American children in a Pakistani Madrassa. Subsequent to the story and the hype surrounding the Documentary DVD, I heard a radio program taking about the Jamia Binoria Madrassa. So setting off on a quest to find out more I am posting some facts for my readers and suggesting that you contact the representatives below AND your own representatives to DEMAND ACTION.


Mr. MCCAUL of Texas (for himself, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANTOR, and Mr. SHUSTER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs


Encouraging the United States Secretary of State to work with the Government of Pakistan to secure the return to the United States of all American children being educated in madrassas in Pakistan.

Whereas numerous acts of terrorism can be linked to certain madrassas, or Islamic schools, in Pakistan, as reported by the Chicago Tribune, the Voice of America, the Heritage Foundation, and several other sources;

Whereas Afghanistan’s Taliban movement itself began among students attending radical Pakistani madrassas;

Whereas extremist madrassas begin the radicalization of children as young as five years old;

Whereas radical Pakistani madrassas have been called an `incubator for Jihad’ by Jihad Watch and Eric Ellis of the Bulletin/Newsweek;

Whereas the former Pakistani Government, recognizing the dangers of a new generation of homegrown terrorists, ordered all foreign students in madrassas to return to their homelands;

Whereas hundreds of American children have been sent to Pakistan to study in madrassas and have not returned home;

Whereas American children are being deprived of their right to an impartial formal education, including instruction in math, English, history, and other essential subjects;

Whereas American children in the radical Jamia Binoria madrassa in Karachi, Pakistan, tell of beatings and torture suffered at the hands of their instructors;

Whereas the radical Jamia Binoria madrassa allowed Osama Bin Laden to address its students on the importance of jihad just before the attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001;

Whereas the radical Jamia Binoria madrassa is, according to Asia Times, the place where Al-Qaeda and the Taliban formed their partnership;

Whereas the recent elections in Pakistan are proof of the Pakistani people’s commitment to true democratic reform;

Whereas the new, democratically elected Government of Pakistan has expressed its willingness to be a responsible and active member of the global community;

Whereas Pakistan has been a committed partner in the global war on terror; and

Whereas it is in the interest of both the Pakistani and United States Governments to continue to work together to combat radical terrorist ideology: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Secretary of State should work with the Government of Pakistan to immediately identify and return to the United States all American children currently being educated in madrassas in Pakistan.


Jamia Binoria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Jamia Binoria is an international Sunni[1] Islamic educational institute located in Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. It is regarded as one of the most modern madrassas[2].

Jamia Binoria was founded by Mufti Muhammed Naeem in Rajab 1398 A.H. or 1978 CE[3]. The school espouses Deobandism (, the religion of the Taliban. The institution houses over 5,000 students including children from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany and the Far East. Selig Harrison, the Director of the Asian Program for the Center for International Policy recently gave a speech that reaffirms the link between the Jamia Binoria and the Taliban: "In Karachi, the Jamia Binoria, with some 10,000 students enrolled in eight affiliated madrassas, displays a banner at its main gate urging Muslims to join the Taliban." [1]. A large number of graduates from the Binoria have become senior figures in the Taliban. [2] Right before 9/11, Osama bin Laden addressed the students emphasizing the importance of jihad. [The Jihad Next Door: The Lackawanna Six and Tough Justice in an Age of Terror, Dina Temple-Ralston, Page 72 ( ] Mufti claims to have graduated over 100 Americans from his institution. and asked what they teach the children, Mufti relied, "Islam, not math or anything else, only Islam." [3]

It is affiliated to Ittehad Tanzeematul Madaris-e-Deeniya (ITMD), a confederacy of five religious education boards[4]. At one time, Jamia Binoria is said to have had the highest enrollment of foreign students in Pakistan. But the international enrollment dropped following the September 11, 2001 attacks[5]. In 2005, it had around 3,000 male and 500 female students, including students from United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Far East[5].


From Jamia Binoria's Website - Jamia Binoria's Motto

Dissemination of the knowledge of Quran and Sunnah to enable the students to think and act accordingly.

Along with the proficiency in Islamic subjects preparing young students, depending on their aptitude, in other sections of religious activity such as teaching, literary pursuits and IFTA (religious verdicts).

Training 'Ulama and students for propagating Islam on international level.
The links on the site are broken, I was most interested in seeing the link:


My burning questions are:

If our government knows about these madrasses why are they allowing passports to the children to enable them to attend these madrassas? Why are they allowing these "students" to re-enter the US? Why aren't their parents deported or prosecuted? Is our government serious about the war on Islamic terror and world domination? What will Baraq Hussein Obama do, if anything about all these questions, if God forbid, he is elected to the presidency?

Graphic Video - Taliban Bastards execute two women

QUESTION: How many taliban bastards with covered faces, miniscule testicles, dirty pajamas and the Qur'an are needed to kill two (possibly, women, because who can tell they are women dressed in tents? {and don't say you can tell they are women by their screams, because the taliban bastards scream like women themselves} unless the women were raped by the taliban bastards first)women for "alleged" crimes and we all know that the taliban bastards only have to "imagine" a crime or as they say in some US cities via the "Not in our Town" movement and their dupes "The Anti-Hate Alliances", a "perceived" hate crime!

ANSWER: I lost count

Friday, July 18, 2008

DHIMMI DUMMY OF THE DAY - Individual Category


It is known as the Veil and is described by its architects as a giant
glass Muslim headscarf in the heart of Paris. The former French
president Jacques Chirac saw it as one way to avert a clash of
civilisations in the run-up to the Iraq war. President Nicolas
Sarkozy calls it the symbol of France's friendship with the Arab
world. (*Others who know their head from a hole in the ground call it dhimmitude*)

The Louvre's bold new Islamic art wing had its first stone laid by
Sarkozy yesterday , launching the museum's most daring project since
IM Pei created the giant glass pyramid 20 years ago. The world's most
visited museum will have Europe's biggest purpose-built exhibition
space for an Islamic art collection, which France hopes will
reconcile the secular republic with the world of Islamic heritage.

Sarkozy again - here speaking to Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin
Abdulaziz Al Saud - also on hand for the event:

«L'islam a porté l'une des plus anciennes et plus prestigieuses
civilisations dans le monde … C'est l'occasion pour les Français et
tous les visiteurs du Louvre de voir que l'islam, c'est le progrès,
la science, la finesse, la modernité et que le fanatisme au nom de
l'islam est un dévoiement de l'islam.»

Islam carried with it the most ancient and most prestigious civilizations in the world (and barbarbic!)… This [exhibit] is the occasion for the French and all the visitors to the Louvre to see that Islam is progress, science, finesse, modernity, and that fanaticism in the name of Islam is a deviation from Islam.

(*said while checking out his Swiss bank account OR while slipping a check to the Saudi Prince for having the honor of being one of the worlds' biggest Dhimmi Dummies! *)

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Obama Parrots CAIR Propaganda

From our friends at LGF:

Obama Parrots CAIR Propaganda

Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:06:56 pm PDT

That’s right; Barack Obama and the Saudi-funded radical Islamic front group calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations are on exactly the same page: Obama says New Yorker insulted Muslim Americans.

CHICAGO - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday that the New Yorker magazine’s satirical cover depicting him and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals doesn’t bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans.

“You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things,” the presidential candidate told CNN’s Larry King. “And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it’s not what America’s all about.”

CAIR Calls New Yorker Obama Cartoon ‘Inflammatory’.

WASHINGTON, July 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy organization today called a satirical cartoon on the front cover of the New Yorker magazine inflammatory for its depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama intended to portray them as Muslim, militant, pro-terrorist, and anti-American.

In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

Unfortunately, the New Yorkers front cover cartoon failed to achieve its stated goal of exposing and lampooning right-wing caricatures of the Obamas. These inflammatory images and spurious associations will only serve to reinforce the racism and anti-Muslim stereotypes that the magazine says it is out to challenge.

Pushing Terrorists Off Of Cyberspace!

It would appear that terrorists using YouTube to spread videos depicting terrorist activity are being pushed off cyberspace.

American Congress for Truth (sister org to ACT! for America) blog editor,has been posting about and monitoring this issue for some time, as well as communicating with key Members of Congress about the problem.

Senator Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, has conducted hearings on this issue. (OMG! I can hear the crying, whining anc complaining coming from CAIR now!) He brought pressure on Google/YouTube to ban the posting of videos that show terrorist actions, such as attacks on American troops.

That resistance and pressure to get rid of terrorist training videos on YouTube is working.

Recently one of our memembers came across a chat room thread below on the terrorist website “Ekhlaas.”

The reaction from Senator Lieberman’s staff can be summed up in one word -- “wonderful.”


Here is J. S.’s translation of Ekhlaas terrorist forum threads

“Username: Mohajer Daya’aa Al Tareek, July 4, 2008

Dear Brothers: Invade, Invade YouTube. Most of special and martyrdom operation have been removed.

In the name of Allah the most merciful the most compassionate
Beloved brothers, we beg you to invade YouTube because most of the Jihadi sections have been removed and in particular the martyrdom ones. I did not find the operation of Khatib Fatima. Therefore experts, invade, invade. Allah blesses you.

Username: Hanat Yadaiy, July 4, 2008

I post one movie a day on YouTube and under dozens of different names. After a month one or two names are removed but I keep the work using the other names

Username: Mohajer Daya’aa Al Tareek, July 4, 2008

Allah bless you my beloved brother and continue your work and Allah willing we will have the experience and we will not stop from invading the infidels. Allah will make us victors and the prophet is our idol and the martyrdom is our goal

Username: Mohajer Daya’aa Al Tareek, July 5, 2008

Elevate this subject ( *** he is asking that this thread he wrote will be put in a more prominent place on Ekhlaas terrorist forum so more members will see it and participate in it)

Username: Hanat Yadaiy, July 5, 2008

Thanks Allah who gave us this tool to speak the truth in their sites and no matter how many names they remove, eliminate, and ban we will not give up and they will get rid of us until we go to the battlefields and then our brothers after us will take the task.”

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Carolyn on the Obamas

The cover of the New Yorker shows (Baraq Hussein) Obama in full Muslim turban attire fist-bumping Michelle who's clad in Angela Davis-style guerrilla attire (Angela Davis, revolutionary, Black Panther activists, and member of the Communist party) with machine gun strapped over her shoulders. And burning in the fireplace is the American flag. Oh, and I do believe that portrait over the fireplace is the other Osama?

Scare tactic — Obama slams Muslim portrayal
By MIKE ALLEN | 7/13/08 6:14 PM EST

The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Sen. Barack (Baraq Hussein) Obama (D-Ill.) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

An American flag burns in their fireplace.

The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

The issue, which goes on sale Monday, includes a long piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama’s start in Chicago politics.

At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to a transcript by Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover.

“Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”

Obama, shrugging incredulously: “I have no response to that.”

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”
Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”

“I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

The panelists agreed it would succeed in its goal of getting attention.

Attached below is link to the 15 page "New Yorker" article. I have read it and several things come out - in no particular order.

Obama's has systematically promised change but abandoned it for power. When Obamats first began in Chicago politics in the early 90's, he built his entire platform on change. But he lost. At that point, he abandoned change and instead ingratiated himself with the power brokers. This time he won. Sound familiar?

Obama has never appealed to black voters. When he lost his first run for State Senate, the single greatest reason was his lack of campaign financing. But the millions he needed was difficult if not impossible to come by in his district which was essentially black. But then Obama's pollsters discovered an astonishing fact - the most devout group that loved Obama wasn't blacks - it was young white yuppies. And unlike blacks, young white yuppies of Chicago had a lot of money. Thereupon, Obama cut a deal with the power brokers in the Chicago machine to redraw his district giving him an enormous gain in the rich white yuppie districts of Chicago. And he won. Sound familiar?

The article isn't bothered by Weatherman terrorists Ayers and Dohrn backing Obama early and hard. As the article puts it serenely, none of us should be bothered by the early and hard - and continuing - support of Obama by Ayers and Dorhn. (Yes, those bomb exploding Weathermen who even today sneer they didn't throw enough bombs and only a few months ago insisted on having Ayers photographed stomping his boots on the American flag. Ahuh.) As the article assures us, Ayers and Dohrn have now been accepted into 'polite society' in Chicago. Oh, goody.

Less than a week after 9/11, Obama 'frankly my dear didn't give a damn'. His statement - pasted below - was the first public statement given by Obama after 9/11. The date of the article is September 19. Now, note that the article was published on September 19th - which means it was written within days, if not hours after burning bodies hurtled in their agonizing death falls from the flaming towers of the World Trade Center, when charred bodies were being retrieved from the smoking ruins of the Pentagon, when unarmed American passengers sacrificed their lives to bring down a plane which was aiming for our nation's capital.

Every one of us can remember OUR intense emotions, our shock, our horror at that cataclysmic event. That event literally defines our lives, as news of President Kennedy's death, the moon landing, etc. 9/11 eclipses even them - it was and is one the most powerful, soul shaking moment of our lives. It triggered our shock, our horror - our patriotism, our instant roaring loyalty to our nation. And our outrage at the monsters who did this.

But Obama's response? Total opposite. He demands we 'feel the terrorists' pain.' Yes, within mere days of this cataclysmic event, his thoughts are NOT on the victims, not on patriotic Americans, loyalty to this country or its flag - and certainly not support for its military. Nope - instead his thoughts are on those poor little terrorists. What on earth did WE do that made those poor little terrorists do what they did? Yes, folks, Obama is consumed with worry and compassion for their suffering, their poverty, their deprived lives which drove them to do the icky naughty things they did, etc.

It's enough to make you vomit.

And obviously the 'New Yorker' senses that damned well. Before printing the statement of Obama below - a statement which will definitely enrage patriotic Americans - the New Yorker first tries a tactic to divert us from anger over Obama's 'feel the terrorists' pain' stance. The tactic? He wasn't as bad as the other Chicago politicians.

As the 'New Yorker' stresses, they didn't give a flip for 9/11. On September 12, the Chicago politicians came into the city consumed with one idea only - a crucial redistricting move which was being put forward. To hell with the burning bodies in New York and D.C. - the only thought of the Chicago politicians was 'what about my election'? So - in contrast to this nihilistic 'I don't give a flip' attitude, Obama's 'hug a terrorist' schtick doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

Well, at least that's the hope of the 'New Yorker'. You can read Obama's statement below and make your own conclusions.

Obviously, I have made mine known. I would appreciate hearing yours.


"Obama’s response to the event was published on September 19th in the Hyde Park Herald:

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores."

July 15, 2008

This morning, just before I left for work at 7:50 a.m. PST, I logged onto my net to see that Fox News had a prominent piece on how Google was making anti-Obama sites disappear - using the excuse that the sites had been mistakenly categorized as spam. The 7 anti-Obama sites were affected for five days.

However, when I then logged on at work less than an hour later, the FOX piece had disappeared. I searched on the FOX website for it but couldn't get it. I searched through Yahoo and, again, couldn't find it. Ironically, when I 'googled' it, the piece popped up.

The affected sites aren't buying Google's 'explanation' - they've since gone on to WordPress in protest. Anyway, what do you think?


Anti-Obama Bloggers Question Why Google Froze Their Accounts
Tuesday, July 15, 2008

By Joseph Abrams

Some bloggers opposed to Barack Obama say they suspect Obama’s supporters — with the assistance of Google — may have tried to censor them when the Internet giant froze their Web sites for five days last month.

Seven blogs run by Democrats who oppose Obama’s nomination for the presidency were incorrectly flagged as spam sites by Blogger, the hosting service Google has owned since 2003.

“It appears that [Blogger's] policy can be manipulated by people determined to shut down the free exchange of ideas,” said Carissa Snedeker, whose blog, BlueLyon, was among those that were frozen.

Google, however, says it was a filter issue.

“We believe that there was a spam e-mail sent promoting the seven particular blogs as part of the ‘Just Say No Deal Campaign,’ and so only those URLs were flagged in our system as spam sites,” Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich said, referring to a coalition of disaffected Democrats who oppose Obama’s candidacy.

The bloggers believe that Web surfers who support Obama took advantage of a loophole in Blogger’s system that allows readers to report spam blogs, the artificial Web sites that abound on the Internet and are used to promote other sites.

“It’s unusual — I’ve never heard of similar blogs of the same nature being shut down like that,” said Danny Sullivan, editor-in-chief of the tech site
Blogger quarantined the seven anti-Obama blogs on June 25 while it conducted a review, a process that took five days and made it impossible for the bloggers to write posts on the weekend of a joint event held by Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“Blogger’s ‘guilty until proven innocent’ approach is appalling,” wrote blogger GeekLove on her site, Come a Long Way. She said she felt silenced by the freeze.

Google said in a press release that the blogs were blocked because an automatic spam filter had locked on to those Web sites.

“We believe this may have been caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the ‘Just Say No Deal’ network of [anti-Obama] blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam,” Google wrote.

But the bloggers say it was no accident that their sites were shut down, and they suspect they were targeted by Internet surfers with an agenda.

“The conclusion that many of us came to was that we were specifically targeted by some over-enthusiastic Obama supporters,” Snedeker said.

The bloggers believe it’s part of a larger campaign to evict them from left-wing sites like the Huffington Post and DailyKos.

Google says the bloggers’ suspicions are unfounded. “Politics had absolutely nothing to do with this — it was a spam issue,” Kovacevich told

Sullivan said he would have expected more blogs to get shut down if there had been a concerted effort to stop anti-Obama sites.

“I think that there’s something weird, in general, that all these were shut down,” he said, “but why, exactly, is uncertain.”

As a result, all seven bloggers opened accounts with WordPress, a rival blog-hosting site, hoping to avoid such problems.

Google said it was addressing the issue and “constantly evaluating our policies and technology to reduce the number of false positives caught by our spam filters.”

“We have restored posting rights to the affected blogs,” it wrote, “and it is very important to us that Blogger remain a tool for political debate and free expression.”

Snedeker wrote on her blog that she wasn’t satisfied with Google’s gesture.

“How’s about a little benefit of the doubt for the next set of bloggers that get caught in your ‘automated spam detection’ maze?” she wrote.

BTW, I have now finished reading Michelle's Princeton thesis. Suffice it to say that woman is (1) totally self-pitying resentful Black and (2) badly educated. Essentially the entire thesis was that her attempting to get Black Princeton alumni to agree with her preconceived 'black victim' status which she states up front that she holds. She then sent out questionnaires hoping to get the alumni to agree. But they didn't. And boy was she one pissed off lady as a result. One other thing - those 'tables' she uses for justifying her 'study' are the worst designed I've ever seen. Confusing, unclear, and lacking crucial information that would make them slightest bit unbelievable. And her bibliography was beneath inadequate. All in all, this is the sloppiest piece of work I've ever seen from a supposedly 'honor graduate' of Princeton.

One final thing - her racism just seethes from every page.

I'll send you my conclusions when I get them.


Saturday, July 12, 2008

"God's War on Terror" Now Available


Walid Shoebat's Brand new book 'God's War on Terror' is now available and will be launched at the Christian Retailers Trade show in Orlando, Florida next week.

It is available now at and also within the next few weeks on Amazon and other internet book retailer's

You can also purchase by calling 1 877 832 7200

Thursday, July 10, 2008

How to Donate to ACT! for America

Dear friends of ACT! for America,

Please stand with us and help us build a nationwide citizen action network that will be second to none. Our work has never been more important and your partnership never more essential. Together we will stand against the forces of terror and tyranny.

Brigitte Gabriel,
President and Founder, ACT! for America

Become a Contributing Member
Your financial support is essential. Become a Contributing Member and we will automatically send you action alerts, issues and legislative information, online streaming of TV and radio interviews, and updates about events and activities pertaining to our growing chapter network. You'll also receive an ACT! for America lapel pin that will proudly show your support - and serve as a great conversation starter!


They have the west just where they want us


By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Center for Security Policy and a respected friend and colleague of ACT! for America

Try a little thought experiment. What would have happened in this country during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully neutralized anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin's plans for world domination?

Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and elsewhere who opposed its totalitarian agenda — especially after Sen. Joseph McCarthy's excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by accusing them of believing communists were "under every bed."

But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa had been able to criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the triumph of world communism? What if it had been an internationally prosecutable offense even to talk about the dangers inherent in communist rule and the need to resist it?

The short answer is that history might very well have come out differently. Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately and forcefully to describe the nature of that time's enemy — and to work against the danger posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold War might well have been lost.

Flash forward to today. At the moment, another totalitarian ideology characterized by techniques and global ambitions strikingly similar to those of yesteryear's communists is on the march.

It goes by varying names: "Islamofascism," "Islamism," "jihadism" or "radical," "extremist" or "political Islam." Unlike the communists, however, adherents to this ideology are making extraordinary strides in Western societies toward criminalizing those who dare oppose the Islamist end-state — the imposition of brutal Shariah Law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.


• In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia." Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan's Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" — Wilders' short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism — is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign" which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed." In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as "dhimmitude." Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from "politically incorrect" to "criminally punishable" activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do. We are witnessing the spectacle of authors' books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called "Human Rights Councils" on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other "Islamophobic" conduct. Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of "Shariah-Compliant Finance."Let's be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22: If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don't, you can legitimately be killed. It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies' demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today's totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah — and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.

American Janissaries - The Karachi Kids

American Children in Pakistani Taliban Madrassa for four years.

"The headmaster of the Binoria madrassa personally recruits (or kidnaps?) There is a long history of kidnapping non-muslims and educating them to fight against Christians) American children to his institution during Ramadan, and says on camera that: “We work on altering the mindset of the students we are training, so when they return to their home countries, their mindset is such that they will work on altering the minds of others. That is why I’m appealing to you that at least 1000 to 2000 boys come to us so we can train them and they will go back to their home countries and do the work and make people understand.” The headmaster of the Binoria madrassa also states that he has already graduated 100 American children from his madrassa."


The word, Janissary, is an English derivative of the Turkish yeni cheri, or "new troops," which is what the Ottomans called this elite military corps.

Following the 1361 capture of the Byzantine city of Adrianople by the Ottomans - who renamed it Edirne and made it their capital in 1366 - Orhan formed the Janissaries out of his prisoners of war.

The Ottomans later began adding other new recruits to the corps, by conscripting (kidnapping) Christian boys from conquered territories.

One estimate claims they took one in five male children from Greek homes to serve in the Janissary corps, for example. These recruits were given military training and introduced to Islam, and were given the task of protecting the life of the Sultan. Some of the recruits were able to ascend to the Ottoman administration as well, and a handful even became Grand Vizier.

The Janissaries were the first standing army in Europe, and through the Ottoman wars of conquest in the 14th and 15th centuries, they became one of the most formidable military forces in the world. By the 16th century they had become so powerful that they were able to influence the succession of the Sultanate, which they did on several occasions.

Their frequent revolts and refusal to permit any sort of military reform in the later Ottoman period eventually led to their downfall, however. Their failure to suppress a Greek insurrection in 1820, combined with another Janissary revolt in 1826, led Sultan Mahmud II to dissolve the corps.


Wednesday, July 9, 2008

They Must Be Stopped

The commentary below is a definite “must-read” on the nature of the threat of Islamofascism and what is necessary for us to defeat it --even if you are well-read on the topic.

The writer, Jeffrey Imm, hits the nail squarely and forcefully on the head when he boils down the heart of the struggle: It is a struggle between the ideology of Islamic supremacism vs. the values of liberty and human equality.

Imm documents how America successfully fought previous struggles against the supremacist ideologies of Nazism and the white supremacism championed by the Ku Klux Klan. He states, correctly and pointedly, that

“the true challenge of Islamic supremacism to America and the free world is not about Islam, Islamism, or terrorism, but about us. It is a historic challenge to determine whether we truly have the courage of our convictions on equality and liberty and we are willing to fight for these ideals…”

We have excerpted a portion of Brigitte Gabriel's new book, They Must Be Stopped in this commentary below. The entire commentary can be found at We urge you to make the time to read as much of this as possible, forward it to others, and print it for future reference.


Crossroads in History:

The Struggle against Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies

By Jeffrey Imm

In fighting Islamic supremacism, instead of an approach only based on tactical measures and efforts at clever twists of terminology, what if America had a true strategy that was instead based on the defense of our values on human equality and liberty?

The true challenge of Islamic supremacism to America and the free world is not about Islam, Islamism, or terrorism, but about us. It is a historic challenge to determine whether we truly have the courage of our convictions on equality and liberty and we are willing to fight for these ideals, or if we will instead accept the continuing growth of anti-freedom ideologies here and around the world.

Islamic supremacists are counting on their belief that America is no longer willing to fight for such freedoms, that it has gotten too soft to do so, and that regardless of the success or failure of individual Jihadist tactics, eventually we will tolerate a continued growth of Islamic supremacism. The crossroads in history that we stand at remains whether or not we will prove Islamic supremacists correct, or if the idea defined in our very Declaration of Independence and chiseled in a marble memorial in America's capital - that "all men are created equal" - is an idea that America will once again sacrifice to defend.

America and the West are at a critical crossroads in history in their faltering struggle with Islamic supremacist ideologies and Jihadist terror tactics. Increasingly, groups seek to halt any meaningful debate and halt any challenge to the ideology behind Jihad, and they seek to redirect such debate and action to focus only on the terrorist symptoms of such a supremacist ideology. Such diversionary efforts are being made by non-violent Islamic supremacist groups and activists, government officials, academics, and media commentators. The solution to this can be found in recognizing how Islamic supremacism (as any supremacist ideology) is opposed to our values, and in understanding America's historical experience in defeating other supremacist ideologies.

A. The Islamic Supremacist Declaration of War on Equality and Freedom

From a counterterrorist perspective, the Al Qaeda declarations of war against the United States in 1996 and 1998 are widely examined as a basis for a "war on terror." However, the Islamic supremacist challenges to equality and liberty have been occurring long before declarations of war by Al Qaeda or any other Islamic supremacist terrorist groups.

Three years after the defeat of the Nazi supremacists, in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly advocated a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on human rights, freedom, and equality. In addition to abstention by Communist totalitarian nations, the Islamic supremacist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia refused to support such a resolution on equality.

In 1981, the Islamic supremacist Republic of Iran effectively issued a Sharia-based declaration of war on such ideas "when its representative affirmed that the UDHR represented a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition which could not be implemented by Muslims; if a choice had to be made between its stipulations and 'the divine law of the country,' Iran would always choose Islamic law." The Islamic supremacists leading Iran were more forthright in their position than Saudi Arabia; they stated clearly and unequivocally that equality and Sharia were clearly incompatible. In the midst of the Cold War, few truly appreciated this as the Sharia declaration of war on equality and freedom that it was.

In 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, the 57 nation Islamist supremacist organization, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam as an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah" -- an exclusionary ideology only for Muslims that denies freedom of religion and many other fundamental human rights of equality.

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the European Court of Human Rights determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

Throughout the world on a daily basis, as analysts pore over the details of violent groups and their tactics, the details of terrorist finance, and the details of battlefield theaters, the anti-democratic stories of Sharia repression are widely ignored by many as the war of ideas with Islamic supremacism is not fully understood even today.

B. "All Men Are Created Equal" Versus Sharia

Tacticians believe the war is between Al-Qaeda and the West, the Taliban and the West, Hezbollah and the West, between Shiite and Sunni "extremists," or between terrorists and those who advocate non-violence. But this tactical view of world war only sees snapshots of individual theaters of violent activity and propaganda. The true aspects of the war remain a clash of ideological views, not merely individual political demands or battles.

Many in the United States and United Kingdom government leadership positions definitely do not want debate on this clash of ideological views, because they rightly fear that this will lead to more, not less confrontation. The historical mistake that they make is the assumption that such confrontation is something we don't need and something we can avoid. American leaders who fear such confrontation ignore the historical lessons of how other supremacist ideologies were fought and defeated.

The root of the real war is the ideas of equality and liberty versus Sharia and an Islamic supremacist form of societal control. Little is written about this war, which has numerous fronts around the world -- violent and non-violent, with propaganda fronts, economic fronts, demographic fronts, legal fronts, educational fronts. It is really what happens in this war of ideas, not in the individual battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere that will be the deciding factor in our victory or defeat. But to understand this war of ideas, and understand the application of history in fighting supremacism to dealing with Islamic supremacism, we must understand the dual aspects of freedom and how they remain the greatest weapon in America's arsenal.

While Islamic supremacists view their growing population as their greatest weapon, America has its twin towers of freedom -- liberty and equality - which combined provides the greatest weapon on Earth against supremacism. Liberty and equality are the twin towers of America that can not and will not fall as long as American retains its commitment to its national values. America has proven the value of these hard-won ideological weapons against supremacist ideologies repeatedly throughout our history.

Liberty alone is not enough to fight supremacism. Liberty is only half of the equation of freedom; equality is the other completing half of freedom that provides the values to truly challenge any supremacist ideology -- the values of America that all men and women are created equal. We learned that nearly 90 years after America's creation, and we fought to rectify this with a dual commitment for equality as well as liberty.

In the larger, strategic war against Islamic supremacism, it is America's unique historical experience in the war of ideas against other supremacist organizations that our leaders must examine in finding answers and strategies in fighting Islamic supremacism today.

ADDENDUM from a comment by Jeffrey Imm
Jeffrey Imm said...
The complete posting is at:

My other articles are at:

Thank you Mr. Imm

July 10, 2008 4:28 AM

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.